@Bionium It’s called the Pythagorean Theorem and it doesn’t help here. The Pythagorean Theorem states a^2 + b^2 = c^2. In this case we do know c is one of four choices, but the question isn’t asking for the sum squared of two squares, just the plain sum. Close but not it. This question is solve for c (given c= 16 || 36 || 25 || 49) using the formula a^2 + b^2 = c.
@Honyopenyoko you can def use the Pythagorean theorem here. using a^2+b^2=c^2, set c^2 = 25. you can decompose 25 into 2 very easy square numbers, 16 (4^2) and 9(3^2), in other words 4^2+3^2=c^2=25. kindergarten choice completed 👍
@Judis Jeevan Not everyone is a math mathematician like you dubmass. I had no idea what the answer was, some ppl just have trouble with math, quite rude of you to assume that everyone should know this.
@El Majraz the question wasn’t clear about it using the pythagoream theorem at all wtf is the sum of 2 square roots supposed to entirely mean before knowing
@Ryan It is not wordplay. The question unambiguously and directly asks for a perfect square that can be decomposed into two smaller perfect squares by summation. I'm literally a math major and if this is wordplay then you're a bowl of chicken soup.
@Ryan This question should be clearly defined for all English speakers who paid attention beyond the sixth grade. Why is everyone here freaking out? The term "square number" is something everyone who at least speaks English should understand
@Ryan there is no word play, the question is very clear and direct. Also, where are you even getting square root from? The question is about perfect square numbers. If it was about the sum of two square roots, every single positive number would be a valid answer, as they are all square roots of their own squares.
@Ryan you sound like a normie when it comes to maths. Pythagorean Theorem was just the most basic example, it's not even rocket science, it's basic maths. The education system failed you
@I'm a Doge I'm not the dumbass who has a freaking dog as their profile pic and assumes everyone knows how to do every type of math their is, Merry freaking Christmas to you too
@Patrick Martin bro this is literally always taught in high schools and even if you forgot the answer (which is quite rare), you can still use trial and error and just add random squares to see if they add up to squares.
@Tsar Alexander I What if I never learned how to do square roots? Sure I can press the square root button on my calculator, but I obviously wouldn't have that option in this case. I've come to realize that a lot of ppl think that everyone learned the same things in high school, but that's just not the case, I was never taught this in school whatsoever.
@Patrick Martin if you didn't learn this in school, either you didn't pay attention or the school was really behind. My country is far behind in terms of education and we still learned it. Also, you don't need to know square roots, you just need to know the first few squares and just add them as trial and error
@Patrick Martin well if you don't know square numbers, you are obviously one of the very few. I'm just letting you know that almost everyone should know square numbers by adulthood. Even if you are not good at math, the first few squares can simply be memorized and require little math. This is no exception to the man in the video and even if he was bad at math, he should have revised at least a bit of math before entering the TV show.
@Honyopenyoko it cleary says which of these SQUARE numbers happens to be the sum of SQUARES of two smaller numbers. That's the Pythagoras theorem. Are you dumb
@Patrick Martin well you should be able to add 9, 16 easily. I mean I just assumed that people can easily add two numbers and when they are less than 100, it should be much easier than that. Anyways, since you can't add them, imagine if you bought something worth 25 dollars and gave 30 dollars, but they gave you 1 dollar as change and you took it. See, you would be losing everything with not knowing basic things like addition like these and so I agree with the other person saying it's bare minimum. Anyways you prolly lost thousands of cash till now cuz you don't know how to add I guess, which also requires very less intelligence btw.
@Tsar Alexander I wtf you mean by memorising, it's simple addition bruh. Like I could have easily figured this out when I was literally 4 or 5, but by the little computation power my brain had at that time. Anyways, being able to calculate things fast doesn't mean much, but this is very very very basic and simple for a human being and should be.
@random person um, I'm assuming that square roots aren't as simple as just adding, I can add no problem, but this seems to be much more complicated than that.
@random person i just said if you can't figure out the squares, you can just memorise it, since the person i was arguing kept saying that he is bad at math/he never learned it, etc...
@RaniaIsAwesome yeah if it was under 5 or maybe even 10 seconds I might've failed. Takes time to process. But getting a full minute? or even 2? anybody should be able to figure that out
@Thommy aVV He replied to the right person. You wrote: "16 sqr = 4, is also the sum of two sqr roots, 2² = 4". A sum is the result of adding numbers. The result of multiplying numbers is called product. So your statement was incorrect.
bruh why do people who are good at math always have to act like they’re above everyone else?🙄🥱 just because you’re not good at math it doesn’t mean you’re stupid. Stop acting like that it’s embarrassing. Makes it seem like you don’t have any other qualities.
@Honyopenyoko way to overthink the problem dude. The question was “which ONE…” so there is no great formula to look for here. Just an everyday use of the Pythagorean formula that I use as a carpenter gave me the answer in seconds while you were doing all your calculations on paper. Duh
@Niranx _YT it's not exactly that this question is solved by Pythagoras' theorem, this is a simple addition question. It's just that you can solve it even faster if you know Pythagorean triples, and this question was about the most well-known of them (3, 4, 5), and almost everyone learns this one as an example when learning the theorem (and is used a lot in questions about it), so they are usually associated.
@Smol Boye you just admitted you are a math major dumb fuck. Good for you. You will literally never need this in real life to have to answer a question like this. It was written in a problem solving format as well. Audience also didn't know it. I didn't know it. Doesn't make you stupid. Some if the smartest and most successful people wouldn't know the answer to this yet here you are acting all tough Bec u know the answer to a math question that was in a problem solving format
@Zachary Jeez dude I'm a math major because I like math. The only reason I mentioned it is because some people were saying that this question was not a math question but instead was wordplay, which is not true. Also, how is 'admitting' to being a math major embarrassing? The starter salaries for recent graduates are well above average, and just go up for those who pursue a masters or greater.
Pythagorean triples come up all the time in "real life"; that is, you don't need to be a math major (scoff!) to have use for the answer to this question. For just one example, it is common knowledge that to make sure that a frame is square, you can simply measure '3,4,5' around each corner and check to see that they create right triangles. If the skilled trades aren't considered useful to you, how about you build your own house and see how well you do.
I never said that people who didn't understand this question were stupid, just that they should know the answer. There are plenty of factors that can contribute to someone not knowing the answer--the american education system in particular comes to mind.
Please stop getting offended over other people who aren't even talking to or about you.
@Smol Boye correct. But never said it's embarrassing that you are a math major. The dumb fuck was to acting like "even you" know the answer. But you are a major so it's more likely you would know it than a random person who hates math and tries to avoid it at all costs. Nothing about embarrassing to be a math major like you claimed I said
@Zachary I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. But I never was of the mindset that "even I" know the answer. My point is that this is part of the basic mathematics curriculum in nearly every country, so anyone who is
a) an english speaker
b) at the appropriate grade level (6th grade-ish depending on the region) or above in school
should know the answer to this question. Reiterating my previous comment: this does not mean people who don't know the answer are stupid, just that some factor has come in to play that has prevented them from having this knowledge which they should have.
Therefore my stance is that this question is reasonable for a game show meant to test the knowledge of its contestants. I don't believe I'm being unreasonable.
@Smol Boye I never said it was unreasonable. In fact, they could have asked a question that never was in the curriculum in the education system altogether even at the college level. It's a game show and they can ask whatever they want.
But math is a subject where either you get it or you don't. Then there's math examples written in a problem solving format which confuses people more especially people who struggle with math. Also, in general, square root is a more challenging area than other plain simple equations. So a person who struggled with math could very easily either forget this, or struggled with it just enough to pass it at the time of learning.
I will say this. I didn't even know where to begin when reading the question. I get anxiety looking at numbers and trying to figure out the answer. Some call it mathlexia, but idk about that. I can't think right when looking at a math example.
But when I saw commenters commenting the answer and how they got there, I would have been able to get the answer on my own if I was explained in simple terms what they were asking for in the question. I graduated college about 10 years ago and don't remember seeing a question like this in my life
@Zachary I understand. I'm sorry that math is a negative thing for you--I admit I'm very biased when I think of other peoples' interest in math.
That said, where are we even disagreeing?
It's a question that is reasonable for a game show.
It's a well defined question (as in there is only one right answer).
It's a question that can be answered even from first principles (everyone could solve it given the basic information of what squares are and what summation is).
The wording--in my view--is unable to be simplified in any real sense. Rewording it for your understanding may very well obscure meaning for someone else.
With this in mind, I am struggling to see how my comments warranted the 'dumb fuck' moniker.
@Smol Boye well, your entire initial comment was degrading anyone who didn't know how to answer the questions calling it a absolutely easy at a ln elementary school level then saying you're a math major. Like you mentioned, you are biased towards others not in your major. But I assure you a history of science major can answer a 6th grade question that you couldn't.
So to bask and belittle others who don't know something you do, is actually very insulting. I wanted to comment my thought on the post and after reading through some comments, I said I don't want to read anymore from people on a high horse not thinking about others and chose you because you said what you said in a very degrading way and then went on to say you're a math major which contradicts your entire point because if anyone would know the answer to a math question, it's a math major, and yet you don't think about what others may find as their weakness or strength
@Niranx _YT yes, and it's most common form is a² + b² = c², which is exactly the question asked here. A Pythagorean triple is a group of three positive integers (so that excludes fractions) that follow the formula. The most known example is (3, 4, 5), another is (5, 12, 13). As I said, this is an easy addition question, you don’t really need to know the Pythagorean theorem or triples to solve it, but knowing them makes you solve it even faster.
2) "It is not wordplay. The question unambiguously and directly asks for a perfect square that can be decomposed into two smaller perfect squares by summation. I'm literally a math major and if this is wordplay then you're a bowl of chicken soup."
3) "This question should be clearly defined for all English speakers who paid attention beyond the sixth grade. Why is everyone here freaking out? The term "square number" is something everyone who at least speaks English should understand"
Where did I call it easy? I said the question should be clearly defined for those paid attention beyond the sixth grade (as in you know what is being asked, not necessarily the answer), and contested the statements of others who said this question was wordplay. I stand by both of those sentiments. I'm sorry but saying someone should remember what a square number is != calling them stupid no matter how you try to spin it.
(Note that I brought up my major because it's relevant to my opinion on whether something is a 'real math problem' or not)
Responding to my comment because you found it insulting is fine. I'm even glad that I get to talk to someone who has (for the most part) been respectful. But given that your first sentence of response called me a 'dumb fuck' kind of invalidates your 'high horse' argument.
@Smol Boye #3. That's where. Comparing knowing this to speaking English infers that it's that simple and anyone who doesn't know this answer and DOES speak English, is dumb. It's how it sounds and how I understood it.
And I didn't say it was wordplay but a problem solving format and some people get confused in problem solving and would rather have the equation straight forward.
Those who are not good at math find it more difficult to to solve math problems when it's mixed with in a worded question which is problem solving .
@Zachary I've already explained my use of "should". I don't use it to insult anyone, just like saying "everyone should eat healthy" is not an insult to those who don't (nor is it insinuating that those who don't are not healthy themselves). Perhaps you're reading too much into my comment.
Also, this gameshow (to my knowledge) exclusively presents problems in word format, so anyone going on the show is presumed proficient.
@Smol Boye this isn't about the game show ffs do you not understand what you wrote? You said anyone who speaks English should know how to solve this equation... Your example about eating healthy is dumb as it is not all else equal. It's not about knowing how to eat healthy but having the right mentality to eat healthy.
What you said is like saying that someone who is a plumber should know how to di electric work in a house. That insinuates that he's not a good plumber or that he's dumb or lazy because "of course he should be able to do electric work; after all, he's a plumber!"
English has nothing to do with knowing math. One could flunk math but be a genius in everything else. In fact, I could ask you a history of science question that is "6th grade level" and I guarantee you wouldn't know it. How would you respond if I made the same comment to you about if you know English, than you should know that history question. It's demeaning and insulting and if you are too slow to understand the way you said it was very aggressive and ignorant, I cannot help you.
Don't forget are you smarter than a 5th grader show stumped most of the country and yet majority of those people who got wrong answers are very sucessdul in their life and. Sure they can stump you in a field that they "majored in"
@Zachary I never said that everyone who speaks English should be able to solve the question, just that they should know what the question is asking. Read my comments again, slowly. "Clearly defined" means that the intent and parameters of the question are direct and unambiguous. You'll see that I have mentioned this multiple times in my responses to you, but you have failed to change your false representation of my comments.
I'm also curious about what your question is now, obviously you won't be able to trust my answer because google exists but for my own curiosity I'd love it if you gave me the question.
@Smol Boye well, I just went back and you did not say that they should know what the question is asking.
2nd of all, I didn't say I have a question in mind to ask. I said I'm sure there are numerous 6th grade questions I could ask you not math related and you wouldn't know.
I'm not going to go and look for a question to ask you. Because I don't know you and you could be a really smart person and it will go through doze a of 6th grade history questions until I could stump you. .y point would still be valid, but it's really not necessary and a waste if time. The same way you could ask me many 6th grade level questions and I would know majority of them. You said this is a 6th grade question. I don't remember learning square root in 6th grade, but I can tell you I never grasped square root equations, so right here is a question that stumped me mainly because I didn't know where to begin. And I'm sure if someone broke it down for me to understand it differently, I would have solved it as I mentioned earlier. I am kinda slow when it comes to math.
@Zachary In my initial comments, I said that the question "should be clearly defined" for those that speak English. My intent, and indeed the actual meaning of that statement, is not that the question is easy to solve, but that it was CLEAR in what it was asking. I said this in response to those who claimed it was wordplay or that it was a 'stupid question'.
Lots of difficult, even unsolvable questions are clearly defined--ESPECIALLY in math. There are hundreds of unsolved conjectures, a significant portion of which are questions that almost anybody can understand but nobody has solved. Don't mistake me saying that the question is 'clearly defined' for me saying that people who can't solve it are stupid. That's not the case. My Dad can't solve this question! Now obviously given that he was taught this, it would be expected of him to know the answer, but by no means does that make him stupid.
I'm not a native English speaker and I wasn't a 100% sure what a square number meant but my suspicions were right and after that I got it pretty quick.
@Patrick Martin I see you mentioned you may have had special education and I also don't know your age, so maybe this doesn't apply for you: while everyone is talking about Pythagoras and such, the truth is that you don't need to be aware of that to answer the question. It only requires knowledge of multiplication tables (and limited further to squares) and simple addition, both of which are taught in elementary school. The average adult should be capable of using that level of math. This is of course ignoring the factors of being nervous in front of an audience and choking under pressure. The audience doesn't really have those excuses though.
2 likes
Patrick Martin2022-01-06 05:50:51 (edited 2022-01-06 05:51:50 )
@Keven Vaughn I really only learned addition, subtraction, some multiplication, a bit of division, and how to tell time in elementary school. I never learned how to measure, in middle school I learned fractions, probably basic algebra, in high school was when I learned PEMDAS, learned how to do fraction problems, that's basically it, never learned square roots, never learned the pythagorean theorem. I'm kind of realizing that I graduated from high school but never really learned stuff that most ppl know when it comes to math.
@Ios ok but did you ever play chess? Sometimes great players have made awful blunders, especially when caught for time and with pressure on, and yeah it looks obvious in retrospect. That is the only thing I wanted to say.
My god everyone trying to be a math god in this comment section when all you need to do is think and list all square numbers less than 49 (as it is the biggest number in the choices meaning we'll get 4,9,16,25,36) now just do simple addition of two numbers out of the list hence we'll get 4+9, 4+16, 4+25, 4+36, 9+16 and so on
LoL I even saw some using terms like Pythagorean theorem wtf?
@Bionium I believe 75% of the audience had it wrong also. That means we should not expect “smart” answers here either. Enjoy your life and try to only be around people smarter than you who do not think they are smarter than everyone. Worked for me.
@ShadowGuy said like a dumbass, you would’ve been the in majority of the audience that got it wrong, also in your videos you look around 11, STFU kid YouTube kids exists for a reason
@Ryan You don't have to know about that theorem. You can just try to add up smaller square numbers together for each option and find the answer. I did it this way without even realizing that pythagorean theorem existed lol
@Arvie Talaugon That's what I'm saying!!! Bringing up pythagorean theorem made it look even more complicated lol. Not everyone remembers math theorems... I even forgot about pythagorean theorem's existance
@someone theorems postulates and other rules in math shouldn't be memorized using your brain, it should always be by heart like how addition and subtraction was etched into your soul back when you are a kid.
But yeah people who uses terms not normally used in public places are just show offs and just shows that they've just learned about it few hrs ago after searching for it so just laugh at them trying so hard to get recognized ;)
@Patrick Martin I read your comment as "Not everyone is as smart as you, dummy. It's so dumb that you're smart and expect people not to be dumb. So you're dumb. Take that. It's so rude that you say mean things like that people should know how to multiply numbers up to 5x5 and add numbers such as 16 and 9... How can someone possibly expect another human to remember so much information that amounts to just a couple bytes on a computer?"
Do you hear how whiny you sound? Really, this question could have been solved by anyone who decided to memorize square numbers from 1^2 to 5^2. The fact that so many people think this is hard is only a testament to the joint failures of the American education system and the American attitude.
@RaniaIsAwesome Also, I love how people tell me about 'advanced' Math/CS when they literally aren't expert in any of these (As someone who pursues in these pathes I can tell you're neither 'advanced' nor expert in Math)
@YTY Are you a small child or something? You at least haven't graduated university yet am I right? You are not speaking like an adult. Please get a life and stop trolling others.
@RaniaIsAwesome dude no offense but adding together square numbers is elementary stuff. If you've ever done pythagoras theorem, which you literally do at like age 13, you would know the 3-4-5 is like the classic example. This is in no way a wordplay or a game 😂😂😂
@Martin Rosol i just said it might be pythagoras, i know it is supposed to be said pythagorean. Btw i aint a kid, im freaking 21 yrs old medical student who is a goldmedalist at both maths biology and physics. My mother toungue aint english, so jumping over me for a small mistake aint good yeah.
@Shumbabala yeah but how would you even know to set it equal to specifically 25 at the start, without knowledgeable of Pythagorean triples. Are you just guessing which number might fit the equation. I mean that would probably work but the guy in the video might need a faster solution considering the time limit.
@Patrick Martin Well it is a trivia game right? If you don't know it then you probably just get the question wrong. But I suppose questions like these are sorted out by some sort of contract, as in the guy in the video probably agreed to answer these types of questions. And to be on the show, you probably would have to aswell.
@RaniaIsAwesome It's a dang 3,4,5 triangle. It's 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. How did the audience get this wrong? Seriously, if you learn ANYTHING at all in K-12 school it should be the most fundamental achievement of human civilization 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.
@Patrick Martin If you know your times tables you should know all the whole square roots up to 100 (or 144 if your school did times tables up to 12). Pretty much every school does times tables.
That said, the question isn't designed for people to work out, it's clearly designed to be for people who already know what a pythagorean triple is.
Why should the answer be sonething people in school anyway? Other who wants to be a millionaire questions don't test stuff you learnt in school.
@Mrs Fahrenheit It is not about being good at math. This is something very basic and if there are functional humans who don't know this it is messed up.
@Honyopenyoko it can be called both and yes we can solve this by knowing one of the most well known pythagorean triplets or even just the value of sin 37 and cos 37
@Shumbabalasquares which are sum of two squares are called Pythagorean triplets. So, if you had heard of Pythagorean triplets this is a simple problem. Don’t even need to think, as 3,4,5 is a very popular Pythagorean triplet.
@Patrick Martin Dude you're justifying not knowing the 6th grade math. I am not expecting everyone to know calculus but this is like basic stuff. If you don't know this, then I don't know what you know. ‘Bad at math’ isn't a thing to be proud of. If you were confused with trigonometry, logarithms or something like that, it's acceptable. Not with not knowing that 9+16 is 25.
@Miss Slytherin I think perhaps it was the way the question was worded, I know my addition and subtraction, times tables, but the way the question was asked was very confusing
@Patrick Martin Perhaps, but he was not asked to do it in a particular stretch of time. The audience could have got it wrong because of the limited time available, but the man shouldn't have had to use a lifeline at such an easy question anyway. Had he thought even a little more, the answer would've been evident.
@Tachhen Tamang How are quadratic equations involved to find the answer? The question is asking to find for c^2 such that a^2+b^2=c^2. Meanwhile, a basic quadratic equation would be x^2+bx+c=0. I’m not trying to argue against your point, just wondering where quadratic equations show up in this question.
Did you know that [because we all defend political freedom] innocent people haven't yet discovered how to predict the movements of The Guilty [People] (whose lives are run COMPLETELY by guilt) and then punish them? Is there any doubt that "conscious" means "conscious of What Good Sportsmanship Is" (yes, the concept predates the religion of South Asians [including Indians], to whom it is called "Sanatana Dharma")? I guess being guilty of being incapable of doing math is different though son
@RaniaIsAwesome I am good at math and calculated the answer. I wonder how half of the people were wrong. But yeah, it's a tricky question for non-math persons...
@Patrick Martin u have to be a mathematician to know grade 3 maths? Oh tysm for telling this i didn't know this :( srsly this is so basic maths and question is so straight.... A 10 yr old can solve this ☠️
@Patrick Martin if u didn't learn square roots then either u didn't pay attention at all or ur school was completely trash or didn't have maths as subject....a basic thing like doing roots is taught in middle school only.... High schools math is heavily based on squares and roots.... ur school didn't hv maths as subject ig
@Mrs Fahrenheit even 10 yr old knows such maths 😃 it's embarrassing high lvl maths can't be done with squares... not knowing such basic maths is indeed embarrassing for any adult ☺️
@RaniaIsAwesome are you dumb? Start with smallest numbers like 1 then go on squaring… 1^2, 2^2, 3^2 and check possibilities if any squared result of smallest numbers adds up-to 16, 25 or 36. Simple. Where did you learn math from? FKN INDIA😹 jesus
@Upright Fossil But wouldn't that make you a math illiterate too? 50% didn't have the right answer, only 30% of the audience said B. So 70% must have had the wrong answer.
@Prakhar It is not about the basic math, it is about how you understand the question. At first i thought we had to find a square number that also had a square number. Which would mean 16 since the square root of 16 is 4 and the square root of 4 is 2. While there are no square roots for 5, 6 and 7 if we are looking for numbers without decimals. It should be said that english is not my main language, but i do still believe that some people from english speaking countries would understand it the same way at first.
But the audience was right 2.5^2 + 3.122498999199199^2 = 6.25 + 9.75 = 16. Or are we talking about natural numbers only? Well you forgot to specify that. But still 4^2 + 0^2 = 16. Oh, you meant natural non-zero, distinct, positive, sequential numbers?
@Smol Boye I'd consider it a little of wordplay since they could simplify it to "which of these numbers happens to be the sum of two square numbers". Mentioning that the numbers themselves were the squares to me seems a bit distracting.
@RaniaIsAwesome I agree I am the same as you, the sentence was not clear, I took it to mean which number has a square root of a square root that will equal 16, e.g. sqrt(16) = 4, sqrt(4) = 2. This has absolutely nothing to do with one's mathematical ability but whether or not the question is clear.
@Peter you are not alone. Many of us here come from STEM related fields and did not understand the question because it was quite vague to say the least.
My background is in computer science and I have studied Calculus 1-3, Linear Algebra, Discrete Mathematics, Statistics and all sorts of mathematics. Math is definitely not one of my weaknesses and I still missed the question because I did not understand initially what it was saying.
Your condescending better-than-you attitude towards people who find math difficult just makes you part of the problem; nobody is gonna try to improve in maths if they feel mocked and ridiculed - they will just start associating math with stuck-up arrogant jerks instead. If you are so damn worried about people having trouble with math, then start TEACHING and MOTIVATING people instead - that is what I do, and everyone should do that same thing, instead of trying to elevate themselves by mocking those people.
@Johnny C.S. Yes, "square number" is a rather unfortunate term, since it can very easily be mistaken for "squared number", which is a much more general definition that includes any number. It would have been better to use the term "square INTEGER" instead, since this would emphasise that it only includes integers.
@Anime Fan Since you didn't address a specific commenter, it means your comment was for the ORIGINAL posted "Boekster". And THEY were making a joke and your comment doesn't make sense. If you're commenting on someone ELSE who commented on Boekster, you need to click on the 3 dots by THEIR screen name and click "reply"!
@Ryan it’s supposed to mean a^2 + b^2 = x, x being the sum of two square numbers. You can then see that the answer must be square with the line, “…of these square numbers” giving you: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Square numbers must be integers and the only one here that works is 5, (3,4,5 right triangle) so 25, B, is the correct answer. Does that help?
@Patrick Martin You can do all of this without square roots still, assuming you can still raise to the power of 2, you can just compute it in your head until you get 4^2+3^2=25. You can assume 25 is square as it was given.
@RaniaIsAwesome Oh, I would like to comment on this. Usually the most advanced types of math is started with silly games and questions. Not like what your referring to but the angel/devil game just cane to mind and I couldn’t resist bringing it up.
I'm going to send people to this video when I'm caught in those situations where a majority of dingalings assume they HAVE to be right purely because more of them agree.
Man people got confused with the question. The sentence isn't properly framed. People assumed it like: 2²+2²=8 and 8²=64 People weren't really weak at math but rather weak at English.
@C Ch If most people agree about anything that requires analysis, they are almost certainly wrong. (outside of a context with selection bias is present, e.g. all harvard grads, or confounding variables, e.g. all were just told the answer)
nah I think it's just that their reading comprehension probably sucks like mine. The question was worded well but I misread the word "sum" and it messed me up badly💀
C Ch2022-12-30 16:08:43 (edited 2022-12-30 16:10:25 )
@Bonk_RL It turns out I saw this video 4yrs ago and saw my comment from then. (YT knew I forgot I saw it, hehe). I thought people processed the question wrong, probably thinking the question was asking for 2x2 times 2x2.
On second thought, probably most KNEW they couldn't understand the question then reworked it backwards to MAKE it fit 2x2 x 2x2. "The question is weird. Surely this is what it means. I have to answer SOMETHING."
Confirmation bias in mathematical form. It doesn't occur to most people to form no time-senstive opinion at all.
@Fatin Amirah no shit, but i mean like read the question bro it's so blatantly obvious what the meaning is when u break it down. "which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers" so which of the 4 presented squares numbers r the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, it really isnt difficult and after thinking about it the audience prolly just saw that everyone else was voting 16 so they did as well
Nonsense. This is not an easy question to do in your head under pressure with limited time. And knowing the Pythagorean theorem formula doesn't help it go any faster.
@Capt-Intrepid mf who said anything about the Pythagorean theorem? Also I scanned through the question and knew the answer before they even finished giving all 4 answers, it really isnt difficult
@Capt-Intrepid problem is he didnt even try. He didnt read the question a second time nore did he calculate anything. He purely just relied on the majorities answer.
@Bambina Forever 3^2 + 4^2=5^2 is literally something a 6th grader could do + ive seen that as the example when teaching Pythagorean theorem literally dozens of times
@Bonk_RL I didn’t say anything about me being the smart one or anyone else being dumb, all I said was that your explanation for why people would have thought it was A didn’t make any sense.
You could have just elaborated on what you meant and I gladly would have considered it, but instead your first instinct is to make insinuate that I think other people are dumb. Projecting a little there perhaps?
@Bradley Toccata Yeah that's on me. I was really pissed and hungry and I saw your comment and replied to it in a disastrous way. What I meant was people who don't have English as their mother tongue got confused with the question. They couldn't understand it and i just wrote what I had thought in my mind.
@Bonk_RL eh fugget about it, I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t done the same thing at least once before.
So you mean non-fluent speakers might have read the question as ‘what is the second square number going from lowest to highest’? Maybe, I could buy that, if not for the fact that it’s a very safe bet that the overwhelming majority of the audience is fluent English speakers, if not NATIVE speakers. So I still think it’s more likely because the audience didn’t think it through. Although to be fair they don’t exactly get a lot of time to vote. It was like 5 seconds, they should really have double that at least. Although the AOL poll (which I have to assume was untuned if it was taken from the web) yielded similar results, so maybe that factor had almost no effect.
Lmao, not gonna lie, I have finished calculus 3 and failed the question XD. Got confused and thought it had to be the sum of the same number. Like 8+8 = 16. Fell on the reading comprehension YIKES
@Sorest same, there I tried to apply complex stuff that I have learnt during my journey through both calculus. Due to that I've overlooked the simplest answer. It's this sort of question a kid or a person who likes math or works with it wouldn't have any problem to answer correctly, however when use more complex thought process it becomes daunting task to get it right under a limited scope of time(1min)
You would be amazed sometimes... I once saw a little math short of the type "what is the correct answer", and it was literally a simple math question involving addition and subtraction with like 3 or 4 numbers. I kid you not, I found someone in the comment section writing a VERY wrong answer, and on top of that insisting that everyone else who got something else was so stupid not to know the right answer. We are talking basic plus and minus rules and in which order to do the operations. Me, who had recently been having my struggles with a very tough math course at university level, at that moment I reminded myself that "at least I am not THAT bad at math" 🤣.
@Bonk_RL I'm a foreigner from South America and I could understand the question dude, I'd rather like to believe that they gave him the wrong answer on purpose hahaha.
@TheJohanster please understand that I'm not weak in maths, im just weak in english. And people who liked my comment indicate that they agree with me. Just don't assume bullshit like that
@Bonk_RL that argument could've been made if he asked for a pen and paper to write the linear equation down but just couldn't figure it out because of the confusing English, but the fact that he didn't even try to do that invalidates it. I know most 4th grader Indian kids would be able to solve this correctly because the question didn't have any time limit.
@Bonk_RL Nothing wrong with the wording. If an adult can't understand it then they're an idiot.
0 likes
Kaiser Wilhelm2023-03-17 17:24:45 (edited 2023-03-17 17:26:30 )
@Bonk_RL However it should be noted that the expression "square number" is unambiguously defined and if you say "The sum of two square numbers" it is thus 100% unambiguous that this means you are looking at the sum of two positive integer numbers that can each be written as the square of another positive integer number. For this reason, the sentence is indeed properly framed and if someone misunderstands that, it's really on them and no problem with the question.
@Bonk_RL 2+2= 4 and 4²=16 still makes no sense on so many levels, the question literally asked for a solution that - is - the sum of two smaller square numbers.
Your "solution" requires multiple mistakes, not just some English weakness: - your solution is not a sum, it's a square - the sum in your solution isn't between two square numbers - 2 is not a square number, thus shouldn't even be part of the solution - your solution doesn't even contain two smaller square numbers to begin with
You make it sound as if the audience was full of people who barely finished their first English class. Seriously, in Germany any kid in secondary school (age 12+) should have enough reading comprehension to understand the task.
I've taught many people in my life and I've encountered countless people who froze when hearing any mathematical term like "sum of square numbers" and then shout out some "sounding correct enough" answer. Not because they didn't understand it in the specific language, but because they never learned to stay calm when it came to mathematics. Instead they either freeze, jump to conclusions or both.
This is also the reason why many people get the Bat-and-Ball problem wrong.
@Peter That's nonsense, there is no such thing as a "squared number" and it wouldn't even make sense.
You literally gave an example of a "squared number" being the square of an irrational number. By that definition - every single number - can be declared "squared number" and the term would be useless. Hence why it isn't used anywhere.
"square integer" is just as horrible. It's ambiguous and may imply that it's enough for the resulting square to be an integer. By that definition 2 would again be a candidate (as would be literally every single integer).
"Square number" may not be the most descriptive name, but there simply is nothing to mix it up with in the first place. Seriously, in Germany kids in second and third grade learn the small multiplication table and know what square numbers are.
If you're an adult attending a game show about knowledge and fuck up a primary school math question you should be ashamed. (unless you have a legitimate disability)
@Bonk_RL The sentence is worded perfectly, therefore he and most of the audience cannot do simple arithmetic or understand a question consisting of words of one and two syllables.
even people good with math can't possibly understand what the question asking, cuz it come to verbal intelligent rather than math logic here. if they just display the question with equation and replaced with unknow variable like x to find, it would be much easier to understnad
Take it a step further. This was a multiple choice question. The odds of guessing the right answer is 25%. 22% of the audience got it right. This means that in theory, an audience of monkeys would have answered the question with more success.
@Michael Havens tbf if everyone sees that 1 option is more popularly voted and they dont know how to do the math themselves, they would obviously pick the most popular one (assuming they can see the vote counts themselves) but regardless, pretty crazy still
I thought you were joking, deliberately having made a mistake in adding up the wrong answer percentage, but you were in fact looking at the AOL audience data.
@Bonk_RL Actually, it's phrased just fine. There are extra bits of information, like including the fact that the numbers are themselves squares (though this is likely done to drive home to people what a square number is), and saying that the number is a sum of smaller squares (of course they're smaller if their sum equals the answer.)
Also, you're saying the question isn't properly framed, while also saying people were weak at English. Which one is it?
@Bonk_RL no. They're just awful at basic math. 16 isn't a sum of any two squares (of integers), nor are any of the other numbers except 25. This is a failure of the US education system.
@Braedo you're proving my point. You should consider taking what you know now and thinking how you would choose to teach math to a kid growing up if you were the one responsible for teaching them everything. I think you'd find that it might be very different than how you were taught. Start with succession (adding one), then introduce the idea of iteration, then introduce addition as an iteration of succession, then introduce the idea of inverse, then subtraction and the number line, then introduce multiplication as an iteration of addition, area, then division and fractions, then exponentiation as an iteration of multiplication, then roots as inverses of exponents (then logarithms). Use blocks and manipulables at EVERY step. Introduce basic geometry and graphs at appropriate points (ie. start introducing them around multiplication). Introduce concepts of algebra at the same time. Start pointing out interesting sequences and operations at appropriate times, such as Fibonacci, and other operations such as factorial. Introduce logic puzzles and WODNB problems around age 7. Using this "ground up" method it's easily possible to introduce the hyperoperations, logarithms, the ideas of irrational and nonalgebraic numbers, ideas from non-Euclidean geometry, higher dimensional geometry, Ford circles and Apollonian gaskets, space filling curves, the Horn of Gabriel, and the basic ideas of calculus, etc. all by 4th or 5th grade. Then you can introduce the complex numbers and radians after that. Then onward from there.
Square numbers are just the backbone of the multiplication table, and thus can be taught as early as 2nd grade, and certainly by 3rd. Patterns in them, such as that they are also the sequence given by the sum of odd numbers (and why) should also be taught at the same time.
But our math education is sch!te and goes as slow as is necessary for the slowest and least attentive in a class of 20 to keep up. So America sux and Americans are kept stupid.
@Braedo but in general if you ever really want to learn something, think how you would explain it to a toddler, then after that to someone who had learned what you just taught the toddler, and so on. Until you can do that you don't really understand it.
@Peter square number is NOT horrible name because they are literally the numbers that make up squares when you build squares out of blocks, and because they literally ARE squares exactly as you say. Square roots are the roots of square numbers. The fact that this concept can be generalized to include irrationals in no way makes the term confusing. Similarly for cubic numbers: they literally are the number of blocks it takes to build cubes of unit cube side length. Similarly for quartic numbers, quintic, etc. And similarly for all of their roots. The problem is that your math education system, and in particular your 3rd grade teacher, failed you.
@Dry137 the poll from the studio audience voted B 30%, the AOL audience correctly voted B 22%. No big deal your math is correct just the wrong poll, don't know why people get so uptight sometimes.
@Zapal Blizh personally the question was worded perfectly imo, I think it's more about not knowing what square numbers mean that throws the audience off. Not knowing any number except 1 multiplied by itself is a square number.
@Bonk_RL no, they actually assumed like this (2+2)×(2+2)=16 Whereas it would be a²+b²=c² They thought it in reverse way Option A.16 was given intentionally make them thought like that way if there was no option A.16 then they might have chosen 25
I think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
@Йордан Панталеев that's why. Because unlike native speakers you put an effort into understanding the question instead of cutting corners and making assumptions
nobody really read the question. They all just thought it's about which of them is a square number and probably clicked the first number they saw since all are square numbers. And most saw A first obviously. Too bad nobody cared to really read what they asked for lol
Why? Look at the homeless, the poor people in the country, the election choices. Jesus. I am happy that 22 percent got it right, to be honest...surprised, too. Shit, a few years back the Britons catapulted themselves out of the EU. They are not good at math either...
@Emmett Jaakkola Sure you're right, but if a large sample of people were asked to pick a number from 1-4 it is reasonably likely that each number would roughly have 25% of the votes.
when you have a real job thats not math related. when you have a family to take care of. when you are stress dealing with your bills' deadline. when you haven't done math in years. you have to grow up and see the world from outside of your circle.
@Wizardds nah in a western country with good education it just has to do with iq and most humans are just that stupid, stop finding excuses plus if they were somewhat smart they would just press NOTHING at all if they dont know the correct answer for sure, but yet they do, so second very stupid move
My instinct told me it was A for the first few seconds because I misread the question, replacing "sum" with "product." 4x4, two square numbers, produce 16. The question suggests multiplication because we're dealing with square numbers so it's a bit tricky that way.
@Raymond Blake calm down with the ego there, everyone can make mistakes and flunk on a easy question, happens to the best.
6 likes
Raymond Blake2022-11-15 00:58:04 (edited 2022-11-15 00:59:51 )
@Nopei Dopiyou said: 'everyone can make mistakes and flunk on an easy question '
Yes... But that shouldn't happen to 78 percent of people on a multiple choice question with only four options.
Only 22 percent correct is indicative of something more than a few people making a silly mistake. It is a sign that a lot of the people in that audience are not good at math.
Also wrt to my 'ego': I hear ya. I don't like having to accept the reality that my math skills are in a high percentile... The instinct is to be humble and deny or diminish this reality. And in certain company, it is probably best to shut up about it. However, if I just pretend that I am not very good at math (compared to the majority) then I can't really make sense of the world. If I pretend that most people are as good as me at math, then I may communicate about math to them in a way that they do not understand. If I'm TEACHING people, I have to be aware of the reality that their math skills are (usually) not close to mine, otherwise I will be a bad teacher. If I see an easy math question on a game show, I will be FLABBERGASTED when only 22 percent of the audience gets it right, unless I recognize that people's math skills are generally worse than mine. I know it sounds really cocky to talk like this, but I have done a lot of soul searching on this topic, and have to just accept the reality that my math skills are at least at the 99th percentile.
@Emperor I know you're joking, but no 22 percent correct is not quite a lot. In fact, it actually takes some effort to go much below 22 percent because everyone simply guessing should yield about 25 percent correct. To go much below that, you'd have to luck out or a bunch of people would have to know the answer and intentionally not pick it.
I think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
Don't you mean 30%? (1:10) Well, it's still a bit more than what you could expect to be the random outcome asking mice in the lab 😂🤣😂🤣... On the other hand, you can live a fullfilled life even without having a glimpse of an idea what square numbers are about...
@Roy Lavecchia the 22 percent came from a secondary poll, I think from like a virtual audience or something. The poll was shown immediately after they showed the audience poll.
It was my mistake to quote that poll and call it the 'audience', when it was a virtual audience.
A hundred chimps pressing random buttons would do better at this maths question than an American TV audience. Perhaps more money should be spent on education instead of burgers and fries and guns.
It's comments like yours that make it so hard to realize and to talk about the truth about my math ability. I am strong in math. It is not bragging. It is simply realizing a truth that allows me to communicate to the average person and to make sense of things I find astonishing (like a bunch of people on a game show getting a trivially easy math question wrong).
But yeah, your comment is the reason why the instinct is to minimize my ability and just assume everyone thinks about mathematical concepts in the same way as me, which they don't.
I don't believe anyone would find that "utterly astonishing". I lean towards thinking you posted that you're utterly astonished as a not-so-subtle way to flex that you found it incredibly easy.
Some polls have shown that 20% of Americans cannot locate the USA on a map. 30% of this audience got this question right (not 22%).
I'm sure you'd agree, this question is more difficult than locating your own country on a map.
To answer this question, you'd need to have paid attention in math class, and be capable of recursive thinking. Anyone with an IQ below 90 struggles with even basic recursion, and more than 20% of the population are below 90 IQ.
@Charlie ParkerThis comment section is full of people like that; they sit in the comfort of their own homes, with unlimited time and no psychological pressure whatsoever, and then they are like "lmao I could answer it, and the guy who took part in this game show couldn't answer it, so I feel superior now". It is a really weird way to try to flex, and it is exactly those kinds of people who make people who struggle with math feel insulted and disrespected.
@Raymond Blake I'm 16 and almost everyone else I talk to are completely clueless on how things work like gravity for example but I don't feel a need to constantly point that out because I'm also very good at sports and fighting and I view physical capability over intelligence so I don't flex my intelligence but rather my physical capability since I see that as more important and I admire that more
Edit: for example, I admire Jon Jones more than Einstein, because he's more capable physically, but I worded what I meant wrong before. When I said physical capability, I was mainly talking about how capable you are, when it comes to fighting, because pure fighting capability is more important, than pure intelligence. For example, if I say that 2+2=5, and some little, weak nerd tells me that I'm wrong and it's 4, then I beat the nerd to death with my fighting prowess, so that now all the other people watching are thinking "well the guy who said it was 4 is dead, and the guy who said it was 5 is not dead, therefore it must be 5, since he's alive and the other isn't!" It wouldn't prove that I'm right, but rather because I was able to win against the other guy in a fight, I can now choose what 2+2 equals. Now it goes "1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10." So now I am right that 2+2 is indeed 5, because I just changed the meaning of 5 and 4.
@Gigachad 7? Not sure how that is relevent though, since there are 4 options to choose from. Additionally, my initial comment referred more to the idea that if each audience member voted by pointing randomly at one of the 4 options, the likelihood that they would perform better is pretty high.
@thesnackbandit you said "*would* roughly have 25% each" instead of "*would most likely* have roughly 25% each" which is a mistake that is "blatantly obvious🤓"
@Gigachad @TheReal_GigaChad Are you incapable of reading? I very clearly said "it is reasonably likely that each number would roughly have 25% of the votes." Is your attention span so short that you didn't even bother reading the entire comment?
@Raymond Blake except he's dead and I was making an example without "laws" that do nothing but prove what I'm saying. Laws are purely ethics, so my example still holds up.
@Pugkin5405 It is hard to find an excuse when so many people can't do simple math. What you say could happen to a few people, not 70% of the whole audience.
Sure, people can add 4 + 8 and find a wrong result, but if a high percentage of people are doing such a mistake, then it means there is a big problem.
4^2=16, so that'll come to a lot of people's minds quickly just because they aren't really thinking. It'd that type of thing that thros people off. Not the math itself, but reading the question wrong
For those who don't understand the question: A square number is a number, whose square root is an integer. So 36 is a square number, because 6×6=36, so the square root of 36 is 6 5 is not a square number, because 2×2=4 and 3×3=9, so the square root of 5 is between 2 and 3 and not an integer.
So the question is which of these square numbers is also a sum of two smaller square numbers. 9 is a square number, its square root is 3 (3*3=9). 16 is also a square number, its square root is 4 (4*4=16) And when we add 9 and 16, we get 9+16=25 So 25 is a square number and also a sum of two smaller square numbers.
This has a lot to do with the Pythagorean theorem, which is about right triangles. It states that when the two shorter sides of any right triangle are a and b, and the longest side is c, then a×a+b×b=c×c So if we have a right triangle with the two shorter sides being 3 and 4, their squares added together are the square of the longest side, so 3×3+4×4=9+16=25 And the longest side is the square root of 25 , which is 5 This is a Pythagorean triple, a square number which is the sum of two smaller square numbers, but it is not the only one, for example 5×5+12×12=13×13 25+144=169 So there could be many answers but the question has four options, of which one is correct.
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
All this text to explain such a stupid question. Simply, they're asking for a square number which can also be seen as a sum of two other square numbers. 25 is a square number and it can be seen as a sum of 9 and 16.
Numbers can be of many forms Complex, Real or Integer and more...
A square number does not necessarily need to be an integer. It can also be of real or complex form.
Also, consider the equation for a circle... You'll see there are many Real numbers that satisfy Pythagoras's theorem which is the also basis of the equation for the circle.
The question, in the form it is asked, is ambiguous, misleading and they should have used the word Integer or description whole number instead of just using number..
All of the squared integers presented can be made up of two squared real numbers. But only one can be made up of two squared integers.
There lies the ambiguity. They used the word number not Integer.
Proof lies in the equation for a circle.
So on reflection, the player, the audience and the phone helper, were all unknowingly correct in their choice of answer and the questioner was incorrect in expunging the player for giving a correct answer albeit to a question that was both ambiguous and poorly defined and incorrectly presented.
Actually, the Pythagorean Triple is NOT “the square number that is the sum of the other two square numbers”. The Pythagorean Triple is the set of THREE numbers a, b, and c that satisfy the equation a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
And fun fact, you can use the complex plane to generate any Pythagorean triple you want.
Just select any complex number, find the length of the hypotenuse in the complex plane, and square your complex number to get a bunch of integers to line up perfectly as a Pythagorean triple.
Just make sure for a+bi, a>b. Example: (2+i)^2=3+4i. (2^2+1^2)^(1/2)=5^(1/2). 3, 4, and 5!
To define "square number" (more commonly referred to as a "perfect square") by using the term "square root" is silly; anyone who does not know what a perfect square is certainly does not know what a square root is either. It would be like attempting to define "perpendicular" by using the word "orthogonal".
@notveryrea1 There have been reported cases of animals showing acts of necrophilia in Black and White Tengu (reptilian) , drake mallard, Adelile Penguins, New Zealand Sea lion, otters You can read about them on wikipedia
I would've just pass on the question to the next person and just get the money because hell I'm not even good at math ,I don't even know my times tables. It's not really a big deal 🙄🙄🙄🙄😒😒😒😒😒
@CanadianBird did you prefer getting dates to learning maths when you were 10, too? That's middle school maths we're talking about here, it's not rocket science.
@Tayler Easdon idk what's worse, that, or "intellectual" hoodlums using the term in a condescending way, not realizing they only use the plural "s" in UK
0 likes
john n2022-12-27 23:23:46 (edited 2022-12-27 23:24:02 )
@GINOSAURUS999 People like me in the UK. Believe me, you lot sound just as stupid to us 🤷
@Peter there's quite a difference between people who have trouble with maths and people who deliberately do not study it because deemed "unnecessary in everyday's life"
That's not the reason, it helps you think more analytically and think about approaching things/problems in life in general from different perspectives.
Wow, some incredibly stuck up "specimens" on here. Whether it's basic maths of not, some people aren't as good at others at maths. Do you really need to be so smug about knowing the answer? Seriously, get over yourselves.
@Babba Bia Messer Oh I can have a laugh trust me, but taking the Mick and having a laugh at someone who can't do a maths question now matter how basic it is I just don't find very funny. But it's not that so much, it's the smugness that is so rich in some of the comments.
@john n it definitely looks like the other way around. Anyways, as I said in a previous reply, the joke is aimed at those who refuse to study maths rather than those who have a hard time studying it.
@Babba Bia Messer I did it in primary and secondary and was crap at it, better at pie charts, shapes etc I guess, generally though I was crap at it. I didn't study it in college etc.
Same, I felt so dumb, but then again, I got so nervous for the guy that I chose 4*4 = 16, but then ... What happened in my brain after, I CANNOT explain because it doesn't make any sense why!
Yeah, I had the same initial reaction and had to reread the question. It's not a very hard math question but doing it live in front of an audience might make me mess up.
I think I know why half of the audience chose 'A': Of the four choices listed, 16 is the only square number whose [positive] square root is also a perfect square (4 = 2^2). I also went with 'A' until I re-read the question and realized what it was actually asking, so this really seems like more of a reading comprehension problem than a math problem.
Yeh it's also just an issue with the human brain filling in blanks and assuming, when i first read it i thought it was that too, but it was really just an assumption, my brain skipping over the vital details in the question. Going back and reading it again it made sense, so it was less the ability to read it correctly, rather than the brains tendency to assume.
@Felipe Matias wtf are you talking about, she said two sums that equal 25. Obviously it’s going to be 4 or less. If you even bring up any other number then I’m clapping your moms cheeks and blocking her number
Actually Pythagorean theorem even gets used vectors and linear algebra, especially determinant and the length of a vector. It is also useful in getting the arc length and even the area under an arc over a 3D curve. And don't forget it is the basis of Trignometry.
Anyways, even if one hates math, Pythagorean theorem and a little bit of algebra would be do them good if they remember them.
@Felipe Matias So it's less about understanding pythagorean theorem and more about having memorized side lengths of a small easy subset of right triangles?
An example I could give is having forgotten what multiplication is but still knowing what all the numbers up to 12 multiplied together equal. I don't have to "calculate multiplication" in my head when I'm asked what 6*7 is I just have it memorized
the hell does this have to do with pythagorean theorem? It's just a basic question of exponents. Or do you mean "memorizing side lengths of small right triangles is useless we'll never need in real life"?
Also true for those on social media who say "day # whatever" of not using the pythagorean theorem. Meanwhile the pythagorean theorem can be used in higher dimensions to help match people by interest on those social media platforms...
It's exactly the "3,4,5" rule that's used on building sites every day to ensure that corners are square: measure 3 units on the x axis, 4 units on the y axis, measure 5 units between the end points and the angle is 90 degrees, hence rectangular foundations...Pythagoras in action.
This comment confused me until I realized 3, 4, and 5 are a pythagorean triple and is effectively what this questions asking. Crazy how much geometry simplifies algebra, I just brute forced the answer.
@Thecheekclapper You don't get the point. A lot of people know the 3,4,5 triangle, which popularises the 9+16=25 equation. It's not that you need Pythagoras to solve this ( there's not even a triangle here) , it's just that Pythagoras allowed us all to memorise this.
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
I wanted the biggest TV that would fit in my entertainment center. Easy. I took the width (44 inches) divided it by 4 and then multiplied that number by 5 and got 55. Unfortunately, I then I found that the bezel around the screen is not calculated in the screen size, so I ended up with a 50" TV, not a 55" TV.
@TheJohanster I solve tricky word problems in an actual engineering physics program all the time, and I still found the question in this video a bit weird and confusing for a moment; it is poorly worded, and it is easy to misinterpret it if you aren't lucky enough to immediately get it.
@Spooky Puky basically A, B, C, and D are all square numbers (sqrt of 16 is 4, sqrt of 25 is 5, sqrt of 36 is 6, sqrt of 49 is 7) and the question is asking which 2 smaller square numbers equals one of those. the answer is 25 because 16 (which has the sqrt of 4) plus 9 (which has the sqrt of 3) equals 25. hope this helped.
@X32_22A [Successor] hi just an addition so we can prove that this is also a bad question: Nowhere in the question it is said that it has to be an Integer number so basically i think one can make an argument that all answers where correct. Since 16 = ( sqrt(12) )^2 + 2^2 is true for example, sure sqrt(12) is no integer but still a number.
@naptable please stop trying to justify your stupidity, the question relies on basic common sense. if you cant use common sense, i guess you cant win a million dollars lol.
@Jason Bentley This question at its core is really asking "which number has a square root that is a possible hypotenuse length for a right triangle where all sides are integer lengths?".
@TopHat Jones wow you must be very good at fighting since you're talking to someone like that and you obviously wouldn't be disrespectful on the internet purely because they can't reach you through the screen right?😀
@Jason Bentley also two "different" squares. First time around I thought it was C because 4 squared plus 4 squared equals 36 and it stated nowhere in the question that the numbers had to be two different numbers. I would've been pissed if I was on the show and I said 36 and they told me I was wrong because both B and C correctly answer the question but not the intended meaning of the question. Poor wording from the guy who makes the questions.
@Marcilla Smith I bet they thought the question was "Which of these square numbers also happens to have a square root that is also a square number?" trust me I thought the same thing.
@a normal person I would doubt you, but then, if anyone should know about how a crowd of random people thinks, it should be a normal person, so I concede, and I thank you.
It's not audacity. The show has a warm up man or floor manager that starts clapping and all the dumb people copy him. They could do a test run and say "Sorry, 2+2 does not equal 4" and the audience would still clap if they saw that everyone else was doing it. Humans are herd animals.
The reason 16 was such a common answer was because the question would be confused with "Which of these square numbers' root is also a square number?" I'll admit my brain also immediately went to A, however after re-reading the question it clicked that it is the "sum" instead.
I've learnt over the course of my life that to be considered smart as an adult you just need to be able to remember what you learnt at school(not college, school..like primary school). I was very average at maths but i remember most of what i learnt, it's crazy knowing for instance almost everyone learnt %'s and ratio's but most adults struggle to utilize them when they're needed. Just for example i've seen the 50/1 fuel oil mix in 2 stroke fuel leave people stumped when they're given irregular sized containers to mix it in.
well actually u would expect a grown up person to be able to calculate such basic things, yet many miserably fail as u say and as we see here and the second fail is pressing anything if u dont know the answer for sure, thats just logic but many people are just too dumb to get it
@alpha well this video is 15 years ago yet it's really fun to watch, lol imagine if we all comment to our old comments after 15 years I'll probably be like 30 years old time passes by so fast now. 💔🌷🌸
This is not smart. If this isn't your field of profession, it's useless. If it is your field of profession, you know basic things like ths like they're nothing and you'd be a moron if you knew no more. Smart is competent in your field of expertise. Basic knowledge about everything in a world that is about finding your field and becoming an expert with highly advanced knowledge in your field is is not smart. Situations like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire are rare exceptions.
As someone competent in math I'd say that's rather tricky. 50:1 ratio in a container of say 3300ml you'd need to divide 3300/51 for the smaller then do 3300*50/51 for the larger. 64.7ml& 3235.3ml.
What I mean is it's not intuitive. You can know the math but if you are not experienced USING the math you are just as likely to get it wrong
If you applied as much effort in learning basic English and grammar as you claim to have in math, then maybe your post wouldn’t be riddled with errors and actually make sense.
@Bob nob , or the simpler (in my opinion): 3300ml/51 = 64.7ml small, 3300ml - 64.7ml = 3235.3ml the rest
No reason to bring in the ratio of 50/51 parts, if you've already found the size of the first part, of two.
P.S. Yes, to me the question was confusing at first too. This coming from an engineer who did differential equations, abstract algebra...etc. Maybe I'm just horribly rusty with my math, haha. It's not a poorly worded question, but for some reason still tripped me up. If I were to ask the same question, I would probably word it nearly the same as well. Though, my weakness has always been that I need a paper in front of me. Never had the "mind's eye" for math.
@leerobbo92 It becomes unclear to anyone who has forgotten the precise definition of the name "square number". Honestly, "square number" is a terrible name, because it can very easily be mistaken for the more general name "squared number"; the name "square integer" would have been much better.
This is a perfect example of not just that "reading is fundamental" but that "slow and steady [really does] win the race". Host literally said "take your time." This was not meant to be a quick solve. It was a serious brain teaser, and a trippy one at that. I'm the type where I usually use pen and paper for math anyway, but some times I can just look and solve in my head. NOT. HERE. This is why I remind my math students that it is okay to slow things down and reread the problem as many times as you need.
I've seen enough magic tricks, optical illusions, bar scams, and psychology experiments to every trust human intuition on any subject. The human brain is full of cognitive traps. I don't even trust my own intuition without careful consideration and validation -- much less the intuition of the masses.
I initially interpreted the question as "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the PRODUCT of two smaller square numbers?" I bet much of the audience thought that, too, which is why "A: 16" was such a popular answer.
How does the audience poll work in the USA? In my country, only those who want to answer vote and they are told they should be sure or an idea when they vote. 95% the audience poll is right, sometimes two answers have almost the same numbers, but that is very rare and mostly in special episodes
The audience is usually right though. Not because the audience members are particularly smart, but because the answers of the people who don't know will tend to be distributed fairly evenly among the 4 choices, including the correct answer. And then the people who do know will push the correct answer above the rest.
In fairness, the audience in the older version did seem to be savvy about old phrases or nursery rhymes a.k.a. stuff that'd be before my time, being born in the early 90's. I'd also ask them about household chores/hobbies/cooking as well.
@armpitpuncher > "(...) the answers of the people who don't know will tend to be distributed fairly evenly (...)" Not really, and this very video demonstrates this. People can be wrong together in skewed ways. That's how a number of social dynamics work, including superstitions.
@Stefan The RainbowPhoenix *the only problem with the US is that we're a "melting pot". So a little bit of every country that disses the US*! Of course, in TRUTH we DON'T "melt", but that's a different subject.
@Tuku Singh Are they somehow less American if their names aren't English? Given their statistical over-representation in the military and public administration, talented 1st and 2nd generation immigrants are kinda the secret to the US's success.
Audience had a time limit, he did not! I wouldn't have been able to answer it in the time the audience had to answer it, but was about to figure it out without knowing what a square number was in like 3 minutes. There is no point in insulting 330 million people because 100 of them didn't have enough time to figure out the answer!
@Jim Frost yeah I agree with you but us Indians and all Asians probably just understand these questions pretty fast since it strikes us probably more easily, we do this alot square numbers are very used in trigonometry and pythagoras, even in equations (which this was question was a bit like it but an equation approach would've costed more time we could do this mentally).
@Singh-san It was. Anyone who knows about square numbers would get this right. It confused a lot of people. But I guess you can just feel good because you weren’t confused by the question. Congratulations.
@ADM Dude how can someone of 12 or above not know square numbers? Did you know square numbers? "There is perhaps nothing which so occupies the middle position of mathematics as trigonometry" - J. F. Herbart. In trigonometry pythagoras theorem is used so much and it is all about square numbers.
@Singh-san Bro what are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about 12 year olds knowing square numbers? Are you responding to a different person’s comment or something? Because your comment has nothing to do with mine.
@Singh-san Dude, I meant the way the question was worded confused a lot of people. Not the concept of square numbers. You missed the point of my comment.
@StayFly So a very small group of elite mathematicians magically makes the average person better at maths? Oh boy... Somebody doesn't know their maths...
@ADM it was very simple English idk how native English speakers can't know this much... We Indians see a lot of more complex English sentences 😃 if this is difficult for Americans then I- have no words
@Prakhar Ok. Indians-smart. Americans-dumb. Got it. You know, you can be proud of your country and not put other countries down right? Kinda cringe behavior if I’m being honest. But no matter. America will always be richer and more powerful than yours. Also, your English isn’t that great just so you know.
@Hasindu Sashen That's quite easy Here's the solution: We can take 3 and 6, now let's put them in a square, we can see 3 in one vertex and 6 in the other vertex, hence 36 is the right answer when you add them cause 3*6 = 36
@TS9 Dream yea most 5th graders in the U.S. also know about this, 3-4-5 is like the simplest pythagorean triple, but its just hard to do math when you're under pressure yk
@ADM it is not a confusing question, not that everyone would know it, but its very simple and square numbers + pythagoras which is displayed by the answer is commonly taught.
@penguin wolf Well, people were confused by it so it actually was a confusing question to some people. But congratulations. Everyone who was confused by it is dumb and you’re smarter than them. Celebrate, and feel good about that. Because it definitely matters in the grand scheme of things
@Singh-san Look, the fact is that most of these people haven’t had to deal with solving a problem like this for many many years. So its not surprising that the average 12 year old would get this right more than the average adult because the 12 year old is currently learning about and using that knowledge, whereas 99% of these people here haven’t even thought about this in years.
And this goes for all countries, not just the United States. Kids in school will be better at “school-like” questions because they have the fresh knowledge from BEING IN SCHOOL
@Prakhar “We Indians see a lot of more complex English sentences 😃 if this is difficult for Americans then I- have no words”
HOLY FUCK. That was really toxic dude. I mean the question from the video wasn’t really confusing, so ur right about that, but you didn’t need to say all that. You know what might blow your mind? Americans see a lot of more complex sentences than this one too! Can’t believe I have to explain this, but there is nuance to the world; the world isn’t in black and white! Also you managed to squeeze in the absolutely classic intellectual superiority complex that many have over a group of 350+ million people LOL. Like say whatever you want but damn you put it in the most condescending way possible and there is no way that was an accident 😂
@ADM I like the sarcasm in response to everyone, very mature and smart and not at all pretentious. Even better is adding a /s. People were confused by it because they dont know it, that doesn't make them dumb and doesnt make the question confusing, there is no way the question could be written better, if square numbers and the word sum are basic maths knowledge. Stop being a twat
@Pebble how tf was that toxic? That was very simple sentence and they said it was quite confusing for many people like srsly? It's a shame indeed for native English speaker to say this is complex... I gave an example that even in other countries better English is used if this is not simple then I have no words.. and it didn't blow my mind nothing surprising...
@Pebble do people forget counting abcd in their adulthood cuz they studied it many yrs before? No... Maths is not a theoretical subject which you'll forget after some years. The concepts which we learn in lower classes are used in higher classes. It's not like maths is not connected. Everyone knows definitions of some basic things. People do not forget at least these basic things and these easy formulas are taught very early and everyone remembers them... Squaring is very basic thing used in maths ALOT. idk how can someone after yrs forget even the definition of square. It's a shame indeed. Ur comment is valid for theoretical subjects not others...
@penguin wolf Nope. It was the way the question was worded that confused people. Not the actual math. I knew the answer to the problem but was confused by the question. If you don’t think we’re stupid, why can’t you just accept that people were confused by the question? Why do you keep denying it? If anything, you’re being a “twat” for blatantly denying that fact and just assuming we don’t know basic square numbers. Your comment just makes you sound like a pretentious asshole if I’m being honest. And there’s definitely a way to word the question better. And even if it wasn’t(which it is), it’s possible for people to be confused by the wording of questions. It happens. So are you saying that we’re are lying at being confused by the question? Or do you assume we’re all idiots who don’t know basic square numbers? Accept other people’s experiences and don’t just assume that they’re all bad at math. Stop being a twat.
Also, thanks for complimenting my sarcasm. I completely believe that you genuinely liked it and wasn’t being sarcastic at all in response to my own sarcasm.
@ADM How else is it to be worded? It takes a second to read and understand, as does all maths. That doesnt make it confusing. What about it is confusing? I'm assuming people don't know square numbers because that seems like the only thing tricky with the question. In what way is it confusing at all? and how else would it be worded?
@penguin wolf I read it as "the sum of two of the same smaller square numbers" which would be impossible with any of the answers rather than two different smaller square numbers combined. This threw off me and the audience. I, and probably a lot of the audience, initially thought that the squares had to be the same number, i.e. 4 and 4, forgetting that 3^2+4^2=5^2, which is commonly used to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem. I was thinking the "two smaller square numbers" had to be the same number. Not realizing they can be different really got me. Now, if the question was worded as “Which of these numbers” instead of “which of these squared numbers”, less people would’ve been confused. There’s no reason to add that the numbers are squared since they’re already shown, That’s what threw off many people, thinking that the two smaller square numbers had to be the same. There’s so many different ways to work this out and people were just confused by it. It doesn’t mean that we don’t know square numbers. If you don’t think that there was an intention from the showrunners to make people confused by the wording of these questions, then you’re mistaken. My question is, why didn’t you ask why people got confused first instead of denying their experiences? If you would’ve done that, it would’ve made you look like less of an ass.
@Singh-san You realize that all of this is taught in American schools, right? I knew squares I was 7 years old. It’s just part of times tables and basic arithmetic.
As soon as I read the question I immediately thought "Ah yes, pythagoras theorum on how to calculate the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle." when I read the answers I knew it had to be 25 because it's the easiest sum that I learned in grade 2 (3²+4²=5²). Why didn't the audience memorise that one specific equasion? It's clearly the easiest way of remembering how to add square numbers, I litterally learned what a square number was when I was 4 how could 70% of the audience not get this right?
@Miso Burger I’m American, from New Jersey and I was taught that in fifth
1 like
Daniel Hicks2022-11-07 02:08:24 (edited 2022-11-07 02:11:25 )
@Professor Archibalding i think they saw intuitively that 16 is the product of two square # cause thats quicker to recognize. If you put a random value for A then i think b woulda won
It's not that easy if you totally have forgotten about Pythagorean triplets and have to go through all the possibilities in your head. If you really think about it, this requires potentially doing 6 multiplication problems (figuring out the squares) and 15 addition problems (all the ways the 6 squares could be added together). Of course, someone that's decent at math could "prune" it down to only a few plausible possibilities, but that's not obvious to someone who isn't savvy about math.
Imo a kid being able to do it is very not impressive, someone who's just learning how it works has a better chance at solving than some grown up that has more important things to worry about, like job and maybe kids
@TS9 Dream yes because they're active students. but majority of people in the audience are not students. it doesn't matter which country it is from. besides, india is stinky, a retarded and overall trash country so u can stfu dumbfuck
@ADM its fine mate u won't get these sentences unless u practice these kinda problems we Indians learnt these sums and Pythagoras theorem in class 5 or 6 so its easy for us
@TS9 Dream5th graders in america can answer it too. People just don’t use it in their lives and lose it, don’t act like you countries are any different lmfao
@Pebble Some american triggered reading your comment. Becareful ! You gonna get cancel by Socialist Justice War heroes for hurting other people feeling ! 🤣
@Prakhar “Maths is not a theoretical subject which you’ll forget after some years.” Huh? So you can forget how to do other things but you can’t forget math concepts apparently? Well that’s funny, because if that were true, calculus would have been a way easier class for me! Also if that were true, I wonder why I’ve heard countless people talking about forgetting how to do a certain thing in math. So yeah, that doesn’t even make sense there. And comparing this question to the abcs is just a crazy huge reach in comparison lol, thats just memorizing the letters, this is a math problem where you have to interpret the meaning of the question, compute multiple values and put them together, plus needing all the prior knowledge to do these problems in the first place. For us, this question looks easy, but for someone who hasn’t really had to do a math problem like this in decades, it probably wouldn’t seem that way. You say “people do not forget at least these basic things,” but this question wasn’t just a simple 2^2 or 3^2. It required more than JUST the knowledge of how to simple square a number. If he got something like that wrong, then I would agree with you, but to be perfectly honest, there are probably more people out there than we think that would even get that wrong lol
@Pebble "interpret the ques and multiple values "☠️ lmao this ques is as simple as 2^2 and 3^2 yess it's VERY SIMPLE ENGLISH and square is a veryy basic thing in maths. doing 2x2, 3x3 doesn't require too much hard work. squaring no and adding no, that too only squares of 1 digit no ☠️ too simple ques idk why u r arguing over these... squaring is like abcd in maths so my comparison wasn't wrong bye
@Pebble it's not complex exponents, the most simple and basic exponent 2, which is base of maths, like the way abc is the basic of a language, so clearly it isn't illogical, but well u actually r a rock or pebble, as ur name says. coming to support people who don't know how to square a one digit no..... really such a rock head u r
I think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
@Singh-san Especially on the SAT, College Board loves the 3-4-5 triangles (which just happened to be the exact right triangle relevant to this question).
@BQ Elite Mathematicians are probably at least three standard deviations from the mean. This would make them outliers, thus causing them to skew the average upwards. The more elite mathematicians you have, all else held constant, the higher the average mathematical competence.
That's actually not a correct interpretation of what happened. The question was misunderstood by a large number of people who ended up solving a different math problem and getting the correct answer for that math problem (A). A plus B answers constitute the majority of the audience pole. It was a linguistic fail not a mathematic one.
They tricked the guy on purpose you crackheads really though the audience was answering truthfully? I’m an American and I answered that in less then 20 seconds. The people were literally laughing in the audience when he went with A. Plus you can’t base a whole country over 1 moron. If we all were like this guy we wouldn’t have one of the largest economies would we?
@Zeromaus wtf. You are saying you don't need to know basic maths? Excuse me, but everything around us is maths. It just goes on to show how little you understand about how things work. Anything you are doing with your body such as walking, running, throwing, catching etc is the solution of atleast 4 different trajectories which your brain automatically calculates and solves within a fraction of a second. The device you are using to comment such bs here is also a product of mathematics integrated into electronics. How you earn and spend money is also maths. You say you really don't need basic maths in your life? Go back to your cave and don't come out man.
@TheFighter InHades that’s not me in my picture you moron. Imagine seeing my obviously sarcastic name and thinking my well known meme picture is actually me. You also must have had an incredibly privileged and peaceful life if the thing I said makes you feel pity.
I just understand that for the vast majority of people, remembering how to calculate the perimeter of a triangle is useless. Some things like healthcare, safety, food, income, etc. take precedence.
But if you want to be desperate to feel superior to other people, this is a great way. So keep it going. Just know that you are just another ordinary small-minded person if you can’t understand reality for other people who live differently than you. There’s no difference between you and a typical person without much understanding of world outside their bubble.
@YouTube EpicUser420 and yes, I definitely feel superior over you, as I definitely think I have some good education to remember what is the area of a triangle, or the Pythagoras Theorem or the three laws of motion, or the exponents and logarithms. And I will definitely feel inferior to a ten year old child if they know these things better than I do.
@YouTube EpicUser420 save this excuse of 'reality of other people who love differently than you' for your mom. I have seen my share of stuff, and I definitely don't need to hear this from someone who continuously denies the importance of basic high school education. It has been proved in multiple researches that a basic primary level education is positively correlated with higher disposable income later on in the future, which might even increase more as qualifications increase. So, get your basic maths right first, then talk about money later.
@TheFighter InHades “the exponents and logarithms.” How do those words fit with the others? What exactly does “I think I have good education to remember the exponents and logarithms” mean? I think you just exposed yourself dude. I’m not surprised lmao
I don’t even want to explain why. You clearly watch scishow or some other BS YouTube videos and think you know about science and math. Lol. You must be 15.
@YouTube EpicUser420 for your info, I am a lead analyst in the credit risk domain, with advanced specialisation in Economics, Maths and Statistics, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as my majors in school. So I definitely know what are exponents and logarithms, since I am using them on a daily basis while creating and designing my models to analyse credit risk of business customers. And yes, I do watch Kurzgesagt, Scishow, NileRed, Veritasium, Mark Rober and many more(to name a few) even today, because I want my mind to be stimulated by latest discussions about science, tech and biology. The point is, you totally are a doofus to argue with me without even knowing why I am stressing so much on basic knowledge of maths and science. And the way you just replied me, just confirms you are a bluntheaded person (I won't go as far as to predict your nationality as it would be an insult for the entire nation that someone like you is wasting their tax, food, energy and healthcare facilities ). I really hope you were trolling all this time. Just please understand the importance of perpetual learning, as it matters a lot irrespective of age.
@YouTube EpicUser420 and btw, even if he can't 'sing' , he is still making more than you, and far more hit with the ladies. You better get a move on, mate.
@YouTube EpicUser420 so now that you can't reply me any good, you start to question my trolling skills? Get over it. I can't troll good, but I definitely know what I am talking about, whether be it mensuration, calculus, algebra, meanwhile you don't. So you dismiss people knowing more than you by saying random bs. Well, I know I won't be spending more time trying to explain you, coz you definitely sound like a 15 yo trying to be cool and mature, whose brain is the size of a peanut. Good day. No pleasure talking to you at all.
@YouTube EpicUser420 now you are saying completely random bs, means whatever I said really made some sense, and you literally have nothing to reply me with other than shitposting now. Why would I be unhappy when I am independent and free to do what I want, unlike you living in your mom's basement? I won't care now by replying to you because it's obvious you have now completely diverged off the actual topic of discussion because clearly I had a higher ground there, and your replies are nonsensical and trying to irritate me. By the way, if your ass is falling down every time you are laughing, you need a good proctologist, who can certainly use area measurements to save your sorry ass. (And stop liking your own comments, it's so desperate)
@Jay Mike All serious companies focus a lot on fighting against all forms of discrimination, in case you didn't know that. Just take a look at The Global Goals, for example.
@Peter Those who proclaim the loudest to love people and to be against racism...are the ones who would actually take everything you have if they could get away with it.
A square number is found by squaring an integer. For example, 9 is a square number that can be found by squaring 3 (or -3). Therefore, square numbers are never negative. The square numbers up to 49 are:
{0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49}
Looking at this set, we see that the only square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers is 25, which is 16 + 9.
This is actually an easy question if you understand it. However, most people don't spend time worrying about trivial math terminology, which makes this more challenging because they lack this mathematical knowledge.
You have to cut him some slack. There is a lot of pressure on those shows. Sometimes I think if they asked me my name I would be like, " I need to call a friend." Also, this might be hard to determine in your head while millions of people are staring.
i dont know math at all that pass grade 6 Level im disable & i was in PLP class for 6 years the stuff i know is basic things with few Jr or high school here & there
To be fair. If I ask my teacher "when am I gonna use this in real life" and they say "who wants to be a millionaire" I'm gonna walk out of that class and never come back
Prince Cooper There's a lot of things in real life where you can use all the math you learned in school. People just don't know how to use it or don't want to think on how to use it and chose to say it's useless cause it easier
Applying Math in stuff like programming and other things feels a lot more rewarding than answering Math questions in school because in Math Class you're answering questions just for the sake of answering them, which is why most students probably hate math class. But using Math in fields where math is important feels much better because you're solving math problems for meaningful purposes and solutions. Sure knowing the rules before you apply them is important, but Math class really just goes on and on and honestly doesn't need to be a core class beyond a certain point
@Link Link yeah exactly, the higher grade math classes are only beneficial to some professions, unlike the other core classes which you can at least argue it helps with your general knowledge of the world. Once you get past basic algebra schools should let you take classes more related to the field you want to work in, or more beneficial classes like personal finance
@Cool Terra will im disable & i been told from my mom that if any bully try put me down by name calling or so that i can use few words to make that bully fell like crap
Hey there, I am from Bangalore and after analyzing why the audience went with the option A was because they thought that 16 was the only option out there whose square root was a perfect square number and could give the least value among all. Very unfortunate to the man at loss. Interesting thing is that I got to know that he incurred so much loss after a span of 15 years where he could have even forgotten about the incident.
I mean i know why i went with 16 despite knowing math is the phrasing of the question. i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 . Even if this seems like it should just be the same as products sometimes they are tricky and sadly in the inverse that phrasing went into the opposite direction
The audience was definitely NOT thinking anything like that.
They were probably thinking 7+9=16, and didn’t know that 7 is not a square number. They are the product of American public education, and most would probably lose a game of tic-tac-toe to a chicken.
I felt stupid for a lil bit there, too, though 😂 I was like "It's none of these, the f*ck.. 16 is 8+8, 8 is not a square number. 36 is 18+18, 18 is not a square number. B and D can't be, cus no same two numbers add up to an odd one (it'll have to be .5 number)." And the it dawned on me 😅 I still don't know why I initially went on with the logic of having to use the same numbers..
But still, this being a 16,000$ question is crazy. I could have had it as a problem in my 7th grade maths test lol
@Chuck Movies She may or may not have the answer at the time of the question. It's pretty safe to assume that she knew the answer even in the case where she was not given the answer because it was particularly easy to solve if you actually took the time to math it out.
@Chuck Movies No she doesn't. On Who Wants to be a Millionair, the host can see the correct answer only when the contestant has given their final answer. She knew, clearly, but she didn't have the answer on her screen.
for the host to have the answer would help the contestant. even if the host doesn't intend to cheat, they would likely reveal something unintentionally with their body language.
@Lokesh PATEL I'm not quite sure I know what you mean, but actually the fact that they have to be smaller rules out the solutions with zero anyway, as, for example, 16 is not less than itself, so 0 + 16 = 16 is not a valid solution.
Yashwanth M R tricky question, i was think lowest common denominator shit. Either way no one uses these questions in day to day life. We got bills to pay and knowing that equation not doing much for it
@SeeMyDolphin You know Mathematics is a difficult subject no matter where one lives and no wonder very few would think of majoring in it. However the benefits of majoring in Math far outweighs the difficulties of the subject at the Undergraduate and the graduate level.
However I would encourage the young ones not ton be deterred by the problems that the subject poses to their career aspirations. In fact one wants to work in Engineering or the Airport one has no choice than to do well in Math to some extent.
@Lokesh PATELthe question said that the number had to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers, and as 0^2+4^2 has the number 4^2, which is not smaller than 16, you are wrong
@Lokesh PATEL I thought the same thing! I would have sue the show for that and bring my fifth grader to do the mathematical proof if need be for extra style point.
@Chinese Spaghettio So you sue the show because you can't read the question, or because you can't do math? Hopefully the fifth grader you are bringing can tell you 16 isn't smaller then 16. Better spend your money on some math classes rather then a lost court case.
I just been spamming the like button on the comment because apparently I was the 6,800 like and if I unliked it would go back to 6.7 thousand. I never felt so much power
@Lokesh PATEL I thought the same thing. That's probably why it was voted as the "correct answer" by the audience. I understand all the replies about 16 not being less than 16, but 16 isn't greater than 16 either... So it still works, it's just not the BEST answer given the choices. I think most questions on this show have only one correct answer, not a BEST answer, which is actually very different. I recall multiple choice questions being worded as "which is the BEST solution given the following problem..." Implying that more than one answer could technically work. Since 16 was the first option, & there's a time limit, you might not look at the other answers at all to check if another choice is a BETTER answer... If that makes any sense???
@Ace Lee True I actually like math and wanted to be a tutor while becoming an engineer likely for rollercoasters since I ride them a lot. But covid happened so I don't get to use math. Math started to feel unsatisfying when I'm not getting to use it. So I'm bringing it to physical life with robotics.
@Liana Rodrigues-Almeida "16 isn't smaller than 16 but 16 isn't greater than 16 either". this is a logical fallacy. something not being greater doesn't mean it is smaller. that's why in coding u use x<y if u wanna mean x less than y & not x<=y (less or equal). if they wanted to mean smaller or equal they would simply say "smaller or equal" or "not greater". yes there can be better answers but the answer has to be right in the 1st place to be counted as one. for this question there literally was, just 1 answer. no multiple right ones that we can choose better/best from.
@Lokesh PATEL the question says the sum of two "smaller" numbers. Sqr root of 16 is 4.... so the other two numbers to use must be less than 4 So can't be 16.
@Ninesquared81 no. Zero can be used, it is a number. But the question says to use two smaller numbers. So if you use zero, the other number is not smaller.
@Liana Rodrigues-Almeida 16 is in no way smaller than itself. If question was rephrased as sum of two numbers which are less than or equals to itself then only A can be correct (and so will every other possible combination) but here only B is correct.
@Chuck Movies bro everyone who has a basic graduation should be able to answer that. At least without pressure like the audience. Not blaming the guy here, it can be hard to answer the simplest things jnder pressure.
@Aaa I am sorry but you're not a math freak then. It was immediately obvious that this question was about pythagorean triples. Unless you are not fluent in English, that would be more understandable then.
@Aaa didn't mean this as a dig but ok. Also I didn't drop out lmao I am studying CS at the 9th highest ranked university internationally and imo pythagorean triples should be trivial if you study a math intensive field.
@Gogetku Thanks for pointing that out, I'm trying to get better at that, so I should have known. English is only my 4th language, so I'm not that fluent with it.
@Rick Harlan idk what you are trying to point out. And before you r/whoosh me, purely imaginary numbers are already out of scenario as the real part has to be longer/bigger than the given number for sum of squares of a purely imaginary and a purely real numbers to sum to a real square.
@J Fast "I was like damn, she knows what 9 + 16 is, the audience doesn't." Because she is reading off the answer on her screen dude. I doubt she knows the answer either. lol
2:16 he had so much trust in audience that he was not paying attention to what she was saying and only realised the answer was wrong when he heard the wrong answer music😂
You NEVER ask the audience questions like that. The only thing the audience knows with certainty are popular culture things. Still, I feel sorry for the dude. $15,000 is a lot to lose.
Bingo! Any question that requires thinking should never be given as an ask-the-audience lifeline unless it's your final lifeline. Then their answers should be considered very carefully.
@Jens Raab ya he won 1k. but the comment means if he would have quit he would win 15k. So he has NOT WON 14k. He didn't lose 14k from his pocket but he missed the chance to win it
@SmartPotato "So he has NOT WON 14k. He didn't lose 14k from his pocket but he missed the chance to win it" That is entirely correct, and I'm fully aware of that.
"the comment means if he would have quit he would win 15k." It says "$15,000 is a lot to lose." implying an actual loss. I get that many people would perceive unrealized gains as losses but I wrote my comment to stress that, while the missed chance is certainly vexing, the guy actually won a thousand dollars. Any normal person would be overjoyed to "earn" a grand in just a couple of minutes. Hey, even most people making it to the show never make it to the chair so they go home with nothing. $1,000 is a nice sum of cash.
Besides, the original comment was wrong in another way, too. He never had $16k for sure. If he had quit, he'd have won $8k, not $16k. So he only "lost" $7k if that is how you want to call it.
@Jens Raab yes most people will be overjoyed to earn 1k $. But More sad To lose 14k/7k $. Often pain of losing more Money is greater than happiness Winning lesser amount (comparatively lesser)
@SmartPotato But my entire point is that no money was lost here. There is a substantial difference between not winning a certain amount and losing that amount.
@SmartPotato Just that this isn't an opinion. Not winning money leaves you with the same amount that you had before. (And in this case the dude even leaves the show with more cash!) Losing money leaves you with less than you had before.
It is baffling to me how anyone could claim that these two scenarios are equal and somebody disagreeing simply has a different opinion.
But this conversation is now going in circles. I'm out.
He lost 14k because at the moment he had the choice to keep it or not, he chose to risk it. He already won 15k but he chose to bet them. I did go to casino a few time and at some point you need to realize you only win when you keep the gain (its obvious but when you're at the casino you may want to play your gains more often than not), and the gains are your money, not potential money. It's potential money only if you keep gambling
But you could say he lost nothing compared to the beginning. BUT at the beginning he didnt already won some questions, there were uncertainty. He then won the questions so he went at a better position. And then screw it up
@Queta Arbuste You haven't won anything for sure in that show until you stop (either by choice or you answer a question wrong). His score wasn't at $15k but at $8k. He would have won those $8k had he chosen to not answer the question and quit right there. When he answered wrong, he left winning $1,000. He didn't lose any money.
@Queta Arbuste Losing an option to win is not equal to losing money. He left the show with $1,000 more than he entered it. It really baffles me that people keep talking of him losing money. Yes, he could have gained more had he paid attention to his math teacher, but if adding $1k to my pocket within 20 minutes (or however long it took him to play through the first couple of questions) is losing money, then sign me up to "lose" money as my main job!
@Queta Arbuste dude, since when can anyone be on $15,000 in this show? There is no $15,000 on the ladder. It either $8,000 or $16,000. Like many here, I didn’t look properly at first. But he’s actually on $8,000. So he lost $7,000 (because he walked away with $1k. He was never on $16k.
@Jens Raab It depends on how you view the thing. Both assumptions are true to some extent, since 'having less money' is a comparison. To what we compare makes the difference.
I compare to what state he was in when he made the decision to continue, and at this point he could claim 8k
@Queta Arbuste At no point did he have $8k. He would only have had it, had he claimed it, which he didn't. (At which point, he couldn't have lost it anymore.) One can only lose what one has. He had the option of walking away with $8k. He lost that option. Instead, he walked away with $1k more than before he started playing - therefore he gained money, not lost it.
I keep repeating myself. I'm out of this discussion.
@Margarita Magdalena 🇷🇺 to what question - the question in the show? If so, my mum no, and my dads dead so he wouldn’t be much use. I could answer it easily at home. With the pressure of the lights, cameras, audience and occasion, I would doubtless be too nervous to think straight. Why do you ask?
@Jens Raab Jena, it’s all getting a bit boring now but, for the record, he DID have $8,000 already and officially to his name. So he did lose $7K. There really can be no argument about this.
@Margarita Magdalena 🇷🇺 I already answered you regarding my mother. Your line of questioning strikes me as a little strange. Where are you going with this, if I may ask?
@Obvious Schism yes, he did have it. He was on $8,000. If he had got up from his chair, they would have given him the $8,000, which he already had to his name.
If you’ll recall the format, the host actually gives the contestant a check for the amount they just won (when they get up to the higher numbers). That’s a reminder that the contestants have the money as soon as they get the question right.
If you think you have to have the money in your pocket for it to count, then I guess you think that the money in your bank account isn’t really yours, either.
The fact that he only had that money to his name for a couple of minutes is irrelevant. He had it…and he lost it. End of story.
This comment section is a game of ping pong played by smart arses with to much time on their hands I think. And now that I went and regrettably read some of your comments about who has the more accurate description of the facts.. I fell into the same category 😜😂🤣
Yeah better call someone who can do this task in 30 seconds when you alone cant do it in unlimited time. The only joker that could really help is either 50 50 or wait for fking audince for 10 minutes and they hopefully start blabbering between them
@Lava1964 very wrong, you may think this 'only' requires thinking. But not everyone know what it is, unless they taught (which is why we know that and consider it some basic maths. This subject doesnt just require thinking, but also math knowledge. There are most definitely a grown man out there who don't know what "square" in math is, meaning it does actually require knowledge/experience no matter how basic it is.
Yes, also don’t ask an American audience to name any country on a map… ”I know Africa is a country…and Europe is a country…I’m gonna go with America *points to India*”
@Ace Lee Sure, would be strange if there weren’t people in the whole country of the US who couldn’t do that, BUT, the US is probably one of very few countries in the world where you’ll easily find adults (who went to school) that cannot name a single country on a map, not even their own.
@DynamicWorlds "Tbf, that can't be anywhere close to the most expensive math error in history."
I don't know if it's the most expensive math error in history but that time when NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because some moron used imperial units instead of metric ones might be a hot contender!
@DynamicWorlds I wanted to link an article by Ajay Harish but it doesn't get through. You'll find it if you search for "When NASA Lost a Spacecraft Due to a Metric Math Mistake".
I don’t. That’s just kind is dumb. Unfortunate that the audience didn’t know though. Idk, whatever. I just feel like he should have known that. Well, he did well to get there and I don’t think I would have anyway so I guess it’s just unlucky. 🤷♂️
@Bob Darrick don’t underestimate the effect of being in front of an audience with lights and cameras on you. He probably could have answered this from the comfort of his own home. But when you’re in the spotlight, it’s very different. I don’t blame him at all, except that, in the same situation, I would have taken my $8,000 (which he had in the bank).
No math and no people skills / social knowledge either. I totally agree, why would you ever think it's a good idea to ask the audience, who are also probably unprepared or have no time to think about it.
@SmartPotato If you ever invest in stock market you would not feel this way. One day your account is 10% up, the next day it's only 5% up, did you lose 5%? Nope, because you never sold it. It was never your money. There is a difference between an opportunity of winning X amount of money and actually having X amount of money in your bank account. Unlike cash, an opportunity must be actualized first and it has an inherent risk factor. In this case, the dude only had an opportunity of having 15k. He used the opportunity, took action, which did not bear fruit. But thus is the nature of opportunity. It was never 100%. You can only "lose" something if you have it and the dude never had the 15k. That is why "losing 15k" is not the right word. Think about this, if you buy a lottery ticket, you could win a million dollar and most of time, you don't win it. Would you say you lost a million dollar? No, because you never had the money.
@Matt except that he did have it. To prove it, they give you a check after every right answer when you get higher up the ladder. That’s your check. End of discussion.
@scrumpymanjack majority of my money is in a s&p 500. I was not born rich or given an inheritance. I joined the navy as a corpsman, was stationed at horno as enlisted. I started investment after boot camp because I had a decent savings by my 18yo standards and wanted to see it grow. But while in California I bought bitcoin to buy drugs. I ended up making good money off that, paid my taxes and then invested that money because I know how fast a lump sum will go away if not invested. Even if I didn’t make money off that rare opportunity, I still was more than able to donate 500 a month before ever making money off crypto stocks which have no intrinsic value. But no I wouldn’t give anyone 15k at this moment because that’s a good portion of my savings. That’s reserved for emergencie, though as an hvac tech I really have no concern of being out of work regardless of the economy. My statement is true, people can inherent 100’s of thousands and waste it away within a couple of years. Investing in mutual or index funds is the most verifiable way to gain wealth for you and future generations. I recommend it but most people do not even have the means to invest
@scrumpymanjack actually if you have debt, then I say don’t pay it. When I said people don’t have the means typically date and rent takes up a big portion of their money. Unless your comfortable with homelessness, not paying monthly debt is really the easiest way to invest. So if you pay 500 in credit card payments a month, you could instead let that card go into default and invest that into a mutual fund. Focusing on spending happens also helps. America is not a country you should eat out in. You should eat in nearly every day — prep meals so you don’t have to cook every day. Also limit all alcohol and drugs consumption, except for psychedelics because they’re very cheap and rarely habit forming. You can read for yourself. Most stock brokers, economists and self made millionaires say mutual and index funds are the not way to guarantee growth. Investing in your own typically will average out to less than 7% and are taxed heavier if they’re short term investments. Capital gains tax for long term investments are considerably less taxing
@Jacob Bell dude, that’s a weird reply to my basic point that 15k IS a lot of money. Limit alcohol and drug expenditure? What’s that got to do with anything??? Sounds like you’re on drugs yourself!
@scrumpymanjack did you not read both? 15k is not a lot of money, it will go away extremely fast. You have to invest 15k, again still not enough to just put that much in a fund. You would also have to make monthly contributions
@scrumpymanjack people inherent several hundred thousand dollars yet are broke within a couple years. People will get in the nfl, win the lottery, but because they aren’t growing their money their money fades rapidly away. The second comment I made was just to say it is possible to limit your spending habits and allow debt to go to collections instead of paying monthly for debt; these instead could be invested monthly. What’s also nice about capital gains tax is you may not be taxed at all once you subtract the investment from the sum of your income and your gains, so long as it’s not greater than about 80k
@Jacob Bell just put it in an ETF that tracks the US stock market and forget about it for a decade or two - that would work just fine. In any case, it is a lot of money. It would make a difference to me, that’s for sure.
@scrumpymanjack most people would love to have that. But it’s nothing over the course of any a year. I’m just making the point that lump sum money is not valuable if you are not growing it
It's one of the questions asked as mental aptitude in class 7 or 8 school student in India . Even such silly questions are asked only when limited time is given to solve at maximum 1 minute
@tie The issue is that English is my third language, first been Italian and second Spanish. Another thing that doesn’t help is the wording of the question, it’s a bit confusing. When I understood it, the answer was pretty logical.
@Petru Casella Every possible answer was a square number. The question was what two smaller square numbers equal one of the numbers in A, B, C, or D when you count them together. It can be expressed like this x²+y²=z. The answer was 25 because 4² is 16 and 3² is 9. So this 4²+3²=25 or (4*4)+(3*3)=25 was the answer to the question.
@tie "brained"? Looks like someone skipped kindergarten and now wants to play smart to feel less like an idiot. If it's approval what you're after, this isn't the place tie. Don't try to play teacher with us because you suck at it and if you were a real teacher you would get fired within the first week because of how unqualified you are. Wouldn't even get hired in the first place. Can't even call you a retard because that would be an insult to actual retards, so let's just go with stupid.
@James Sumner lmao you’re really counting the minutes until it’s been two days for some pedantic lowlife reason. How do you even know that it’s nearly two days? Because it only says 1 day ago… anyways I’m not going to spoonfeed you the explanation when the game show articulated it perfectly as is… if you have reading comprehension problems just say that James 😂
0 likes
James Sumner2022-11-06 09:08:49 (edited 2022-11-06 09:37:06 )
@tie "Not reading your paragraph by the way" -tie not to long ago
Then processes to write a paragraph himself lol brain dead moment part 2
Edit: I think he deleted his reply after he read my comment I don't see the reply on my end.
He said, "Imao you're really counting the minutes until it's been two days for some pedantic lowlife reason. How do you even know that it's nearly two days? Because it only says 1 day ago... anyways I'm not going to spoonfeed you the explanation when the game show articulated it perfectly as is... if you have comprehension problems just say that James 😂"
@tie The way the question is structured is what makes it tricky. In my head I thought it was 16 because 4x4=16, and 4 is a smaller square, i.e 2x2. "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?" Notice how 'square numbers' appears twice, so my brain immediately associated both times it was mentioned with numbers with 16 and 4, respectively, because a square has 4 sides. At the same time, my mind associated the phrase "the sum of" with "made up of", which if true would mean that 16 is the only correct answer, since neither 5, 6 or 7 are square numbers.
@James Sumner nope, my reply is still up. And the fact that you had it copied and pasted proves you did more than just read it. Also, your very poor English is probably why you couldn’t understand a 6th grade math question
@Kory Ogden that rewording is pretty bad too. It doesn't tell you that the operation is addition, it could easily be confused with multiplication, "get" isn't a mathematical term, "sum" is, it implies addition. In my opinion the original wording is fine as it is, but those who have difficulty understanding it are probably just visual learners...
Noob at Redstone2022-11-07 04:13:21 (edited 2022-11-07 05:13:47 )
@First Name Last Name Hmm, I guess it might be related to the order in which the information is presented. Saying “perfect square” instead of “square” might fix it
yeah, i'm like, no option is correct. zero is the correct answer??? 0^2 + 0^2 = 0, but zero's not smaller than zero!!! my interpretation was, take a smaller square number, add it to itself, that sum will equal a square number. i realized what the question is actually asking about halfway through
@Sad Can Which most people have better things to do then study that. Not sure why it's a shocker that most people don't know it because most people don't give a fuck
Yea at first i was like 1+1 = 2, 4+4 = 8, 9+9 = 18, etc...and then i realized they dont really need to be the same number added together they could be different
@Novamonster, Thanks to you brother, i finally understand it.
The question embedded a false condition to my head that the number should be the same as the square root of its original number, as for 36, (3²=) 9 + (3²=) 9 = 18 (wrong, no other squared roots), for 16, (2²=) 4 + (2²=) 4 = 8 (wrong, no other squared roots), for 25, cannot use 5 because its not a perfect square, but 25 has still have other perfect square which is the (3²=) 9 + (4²=) 16 ≈ 25.
Just sharing my understanding guys, i find it hard too, that's why i'm glad to learned it and share it hahahaha
@tie It's easily possible someone who has been out of school for a long time might not remember what a "square number" is. Unlike a lot of other basic math, it's not really a thing that comes up in real life much for the average person.
@tie Everyone is just asking how you would reword it. I'm pretty sure it'd take less time that hating on them for saying you should explain your point.
@tie it's easy for the English speaker to understand the question with no difficulty but it's tricky and hard for non-English speakers. For example, you wouldn't be able to understand fully the same question if it was asked in a Little bit of a tricky way in Mandarin Chinese.
@Kd Fr1 36 + 9 + 1 does not sum up to 49, but to 46. Also the Question says "sum of two numbers".
My approach was simply to list all sqares in my head and then sum up two of them like this: 1²=1, 2²=4, 3²=9, 4²=16, 5²=25,... (realy just "calculated" 1, 4, 9 since 16, 25, 36, 49 already in the answers) summing 1+4, 1+9, 4+9 does not get 16. summing 1+16, 4+16, and there it is 9+16 =25. The answer is B. Final Answer.
@tie when it says the sum of two smaller square numbers it makes it seem like the two smaller numbers have to be the same number when you can have two different small numbers. That part of the question should be made clear.
@KakaCarrotCake good for you me and 500 other people think differently than you. Crazy right? Open your mind sir not everyone thinks the same exact way
There's an instinctive assumption that the two smaller square numbers were the same. BTW, you don't have to be obnoxious about it. I figured it out but it took a minute. This guy is under pressure and cameras are pointed at him.
I’m sure a million people attempted to explain it before me, but fuck it, here i go. So it is simple to understand in my opinion if you do know and remember basic math. The answer is 25, because as a start it is the square of 5 and that we can get through adding up 16 and 9 which are the squares of 4 and 3. 16 and 9 are the numbers in question and they are the only squares smaller than 25 that can add up to exactly 25.
WOW!! Wait, let me guess ... "small man's syndrome" right? You were a little guy, maybe a math whiz, and you felt you got picked on as a kid and now you can't let it go and now go around being an a-hole on YT comment threads, huh?
Good for you - don't let me stop you. (I doubt I could stop you in any case - even if I gave a f*ck.)
Hit a nerve, huh? Sorry. I don't actually go around picking fights with strangers online. I'll have forgotten this video and you before dinner. So enjoy yourself.
@Tobi people gave you likes because you’re an NPC just like them. The fact that you’re bragging about internet points and having a meltdown in a comment section proves that you are in dire need of professional help
@Gus this is how I interpreted it as well. It was only after I did the math (which admittedly did not take very long) that I realized the two smaller squares did not have to be equal (none of the options would have worked under that interpretation).
@VIC I think the difficulty is understanding specific math terms in English by people who learned math through different teaching methods in other languages. I must also add how English is a poor language that loves to gather several meanings in a single word, which in my opinion makes it difficult to express itself through language.
@tie of course its "simple". Its a trivia game and when you are schooled in pythagorean theorem or at least know what squares are, you will figure this out much faster. Good for you though, you won't be forever solving numbers in your life 👍
edit: reading your comments, you seem to be a toxic cringelord. someone obviously hurt you lmao
Why are you yelling, Victor? It's not personal. It's just a little math problem on YT. All I said it that the wording of the question is somewhat vague and can lead to a misleading assumption. That was, very likely, intentional.
I did, in fact, solve the problem in my head - it just took about 30 seconds or so longer than it should have. Having 49 as an option threw me off.
@Dustin bruh you call him einstain because he has elementary school knowlege of maths and english, it says a lot about how educated you all are. I am not even a fluent english speaker and i can understand the question so why is that a problem for people who speaks englisb everyday? I guess you are just uneducated in maths.
@tie bro just leave us dumbasses. Go off and sit on your throne of intellectual magnificence and leave us peasants of intellect to grunt and drag our knuckles
@Judanji Thank you for explaining it more thoroughly than a guy who has a big ego saying he knows the answer but cannot explain to everyone and goes to attack everyone.
why is everyone killing @tie, the wording of the question is so simple and so is the solution. Anyone with basic maths knowledge should probably be able to solve it
@tie what they meant is that at first glance the question sounds confusing when it's not Instead of hyping yourself up over the most basic things, how about you work understanding subtext without having it be explained to you? One could even say this skill is as basic and commonplace as the skills needed to answer the question in the video. Cheers, get a life.
@tie Google irony for me real quick, you dont actually seem to know what that word means. Or grab a dictionary, maybe after you expand your vocabulary a bit you can come up with something original. Cheers, get a life.
@tie Irony and post-irony are two fundamentally different things, the "post" prefix isn't there just to look pretty, but sure buddy. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thank you If you'll excuse me I got work to do, keep parroting after me if you'd like
The question should have been worded "Which of these SQUARED numbers happen to be the sum of two DIFFERENT square numbers" I feel the one who wrote that question is analphabet And the rewording comes from me, an Spanish main I just realized "Sum" is ambiguos, which should be fixed as well, it could mean the result or the operation after squaring... Wow, there's so much wrong with this.
Greetings, Alhimik. It's as easy as that: the answer to this question is 25.
We first need to define what we mean by square number. A square number is a number that is the product of itself, and an important property related to this expression is that the square of a number can be expressed as a power of two. This means that we can write square numbers using power notation, for example, 4 can be written as 2^2, because 4 = 2 x 2. Knowing this, we can now find the set of square number solutions.
Let's set ourselves the task of proving that two smaller square numbers will sum up to the given number, that is: n^2 = m^2 + k^2 where m and k are defined square numbers.
Taking the square root of both sides, we have that n = sqrt(m^2 + k^2).
Thus, in order to find out when this will be true, we must solve the equation sqrt(m^2 + k^2)|
@Alhimik Yes, I was thinking exactly the same thing. The wordings are not specific enough. The moderator should add comments like "the smaller square numbers can be different from your choice answer"
@MASTI TIME dude explain to me calling us dumb and not actually giving us an explanation is kind of a d move no? If you could explain to me id love that
@Petru Casella English is also my third language but I understand the question well, it means out of the four square numbers which one of these is the sum of another square numbers such as 25 is square of 5 and 25 is the sum of 16 and 9 which are also squares of other numbers (4 and 3)
Tbh the question should've said "squared" instead of "square" it's really easy to get lost in that kind of wording and on top of that everyone was timed
I think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
at first, u think the question is stupid and false. Then you realise, the question asks which of the smaller square numbers sum to give the desired option. So out of 0,1,4,9,16,25,... only 25 satisfies 25 = 16 + 9. We cannot have something like 16 = 16 + 0, as 16 is not smaller than 16
@Kory Ogden your way of wording is more confusing than the original lol "each squared" just call them square numbers "two numbers can get which of the following answers" two numbers what? the sum of two numbers? the product of two numbers? two numbers divided by each other?
@Blueberry Oatmeal well i learned how to spell pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis in second grade, means im the smartest human alive according to your dumbass logic
@tie square number and square root make me confused, because English is my third language, and when i meet wording like two smaller square numbers i think about square roots, dont know why, so question is really confusing when they mix different descriptions -sum,smaller,square. But for native speaker it should be easy.
I haven't watched the whole video because I also wasn't 100% sure and I have passed intermediate calculus so questions like these are easy to compute if it is explained in way I understand it. I've never heard of a square number. If it is a squared number, ok then they are all numbers that have been squared. So, which squared number is also the number when adding together two smaller squared numbers. 1sq=1, 1+1=2 2sq=4, 4+4=8 3sq=9, 9+9=18 4sq=16, 16+16=32 5sq=25, 25+25=50 No smaller squared number "1,4,9,16,25..." added together equals the choices So I don't understand the question either. Also, nw that I watched it, how can a sum of two equal values be odd? Even when I think, ok maybe the square number is actually the root: sqrt25=5, 5+5=10. I don't get it still.
@Bread Buster ever opened a maths book? Have some common sense dude ,any science student who have studied maths can answer that sh*t,if you don't believe me show that to any of your high school teachers..
@tie >"I only reply when someone is talking to me" >Proceeds to mock wording of a non native English speaker not talking to him
>"Hahaha you all are NPCs" >"You refered to your first language like it's a video game"
The very definition of hypocrisy
What an annoying and pretentious redditor you must be, kinda feel bad for you having enough time to write your life story in this thread, unfortunately I can imagine the smell
@tie when it said the square root of two smaller squared numbers I thought it meant two of the same squared numbers, the wording is more difficult than the actual math
@tie Because It's Not Articulated Very Well. I Think Your the Manifestation of My Friends Ego. I Beat His Ass Because He Thought He Was Better Than Everyone Else Lmao
Being someone that learnt math in Spanish it was hard for me to understand the question at first, only now im learning mathematical terms in English and still get them mixed up or forget what they mean. But once I understood it, ez peasy.
@KakaCarrotCake terminology, someone that never learnt math in English may not understand terminology that is in English as they have never seen it before. Your comment if anything makes you seem more stupid by the simple fact you can not understand that simple fact.
@Manati Powa I'm not english, my first language is absolutely not english or anything related to english yet I understood the question easily. Facts has been told, points has been made it seems that the only one stupid here is you. Thanks for your participation you can walk out the same way you came here.
@KakaCarrotCake You are clearly retarded. My first language isn't English either, I learnt math 100% on Spanish and I never saw any terminology in English, only now im starting to learn the terminology, how the fuck would you expect someone who has NEVER had any contact with the terminology, know about it? Spanish math terminology is very different from the one in English. You literally can't understand something as simple as that? Are you dumber than a 5 year old? Really?
So many sad, entitled egos in the comment section XD I would say that If your parents beat you up in home after school nobody in the internet is at fault and you do not have to attack strangers for stupid reason such as math theories so you can feel better in your miserable life, you are as bad as grammar n*zis LMFAO
@tie: "*snort* it's so simple tho *snort*" Everyone: "explain it then" @tie: "erm... uh... I won't explain to you plebians, but just trust that I totally get it myself!"
@Gaia Rossi la domanda chiede "Quali di questi numeri quadrati è anche la somma di due quadrati più piccoli?"
Il ragionamento è questo: Considero il caso in cui la risposta sia 25. Allora x²+y²=25 Adesso devi trovare quel numero quadrato, che sottratto a 25, mi dia come risultato un altro numero al quadrato. Quindi ho 4 opzioni (sono tutti i quadrati più piccoli di 25=5²) a) 1² b) 2² c) 3² d) 4² Ora escludo le opzioni a) e b) perché se li sottraggo da 25, i risultati non sono dei quadrati perfetti. Mi rimangono le opzioni c) e d) che sono entrambe corrette. Infatti se considero c) ottengo: 25-9=16 e considerando d) ottengo: 25-9=16
0 likes
Space junk2022-12-22 18:33:53 (edited 2022-12-22 18:35:01 )
This question does not specify that the numbers, which the answer is the sum of, should be squares of integers. So every answer is correct.
Same when it said “square number” I didn’t know if it meant square roots or the product of a square root but if you actually understand the question it’s easy
Conclusion: they should have worded the question better here is a better way to word it:
What product of a square root will be the sum of two other square roots when squared and added together? 16,25,36,49
This might also be confusing but imo it’s better than just saying “square numbers”
@Tobi both the answer AND the question were simple. A sum of two squares. What's a SUM? What's a SQUARE? These are things that third graders used to know. Now we live in an Idiocracy.
@tie You can understand the question without jumping to conclusions as to why others may struggle more with it than you. For one, it's obvious you approach that question, of why people struggle with this, hoping to inflate your ego.
@KakaCarrotCake I also learned English as a second language. However, everyone's understanding is different. Some people struggle more with comprehension, especially if the question involves terms they may not understand, applied at multiple levels. They have to deal with the sum of two square numbers making a third, and they may not understand what a square number even is, and they don't feel comfortable with words like "sum". Students struggle with understanding "word problems" all the time, even in college.
If someone's basic math skills are weak, and they are for a huge percentage of people, they will struggle with understanding the question. Once they do understand it, they will see it as the trivial question it is. Regardless, your attitude is unnecessarily aggressive. Why be so hostile to someone you know nothing about? It would be better to see it as a chance to explain the question in different terms, since this can even help you see concepts more clearly, though not always.
Lol I took calculus in University and the math there was easier to understand than the wording of this question. Whoever wrote it needs to go back and learn English. It's like one of those word problems that go "Timmy has 7 oranges and ate 3 bananas. How many pumpkins does Timmy have?" It just doesn't make sense.
@Petru Casella I'll start from the basics, to make sure my message is absolutely clear. A square number is a number that is the result of multiplying a number by itself (a whole number in this case). The question states that, out of the four square numbers presented in the options, which one can be represented as the sum of two smaller square numbers. 25 is the answer, since it is both 5 squared (the square number of 5), and 4 squared plus 3 squared.
@Gruuvin1 If I asked you what the סכום of ארבע וחמש is, would you be able to answer me? No, because there's a near-garunteed chance that your native language is not hebrew.
@Gruuvin1 It does, since most of the users who couldn't understand it stated that English was their 2nd/3rd language, and that they didn't learn these terms in English.
@Dorol They chose to compete on an English language talk show. I didn't choose to understand your ridiculous Hebrew conconction. Your example doesn't relate to the situation. At all.
@Alhimik 'sum' in terms of math has always meant addition, while 'product' has always meant multiplication. If the question was worded better then I feel even the audience wouldn't have been so confused by it. If people generally say they thought you were asking for a different solution then I think its the person who is giving the question who is at fault.
@tie i have a degree in physics the maths ive done is significantly higher and harder than any maths you can scramble. And even i have no fucking clue what the question is asking.
@Tobi it is simple. Which of these numbers is a sum of two smaller square numbers? How is that hard to understand? 4*4 + 3*3 = 25. Elementary school question.
@Tobi I find "ignorance is bliss" is often what idiots say to mask the fact that they have no control over any aspect of their life. It's quite sad really. Better to have no idea of what the problem is than have to confront the fact that even if I did know the problem there is nothing I can do about it. Fairly unfulfilling way to go through life, I guess this is why so many people are religious, they feel they can hedge their bets that things might be less depressing in the afterlife
Ohhhhh it’s just the phrasing that trips a lot of people up I wud say…we’ll at least for me. This is like an sat question where it’s pretty simple but they phrase it in a way that u think it’s more complex
Yeah fr I could not understand what it was asking and I’m usually really good at figuring out confusing questions. Like I got it eventually but being in that situation you’re gonna overlook things.
@Tobi fr. I am so sick of these constant “well I can do it, so that means everyone can, and if you can’t well, then you’re inferior” attitudes everywhere lately. People want to boast about being smarter or superior, but it takes two seconds to realise that not everyone is the exact same way as you, and other people may do/understand things differently. Really speaks on their supposed “intelligence.”
@KakaCarrotCake dude they’ve stated multiple times they know the answer. Their statement was that the question was worded confusingly, which is not wrong.
@tie DO YOU WANT A MEDAL OR SOMETHING?? Omg guys look! This dude figured this out faster then everyone else! He must be the most superior being on the planet! Let’s worship him for we are all incompetent worthless fools compared to him :(
@tie oh yes, because everyone piling on you (which you’re also doing to everyone else….) is “mob mentality” and not because you’re being a massive prick.
@LORD_NOM_CONQUERS ALL because they’re being an asshile. Refusing to answer people who are confused, and dunking on people who are. They’ve got a massive superiority complex and it’s showing hard. Yours is showing a bit too in your comment. You can’t sit there and say that the question isn’t confusing, and is simple to understand, as that is factually incorrect because many people have stated it was confusingly worded. I have a basic understanding of math, and was able to solve it when I understood what it was asking, which I couldn’t at first BECAUSE IT WAS CONFUSINGLY WORDED. Some people have trouble in different areas of processing. Doesn’t make them dumb or inferior in anyway.
@Luís-Sophus-822 specifying it’s different helps, but I think I figured out a good rewording. All it does is change sum to “when added together” which yea, is what sun means, but it’s easy to overlook or forget that and that’s the problem word here. So “which of these (square) numbers can be created by adding together two smaller square numbers.” Much simpler, no?
@Kriegter it’s not really that, either. I’m ok w Math, and pretty decent at English. It’s that sum meaning addition is pretty easy to overlook or forget. This whole question can be solved by specifying addition in clearer terms.
@Zachary Rollick question was confusing to me too, and I was always top of my English class, and had a ton of extra English credits :) misunderstanding one thing doesn’t define you’re entire understanding of a language/subject.
Also before anyone says some shit to me about me leaving so many comments on this old thread, I don’t give a fuck. I guess this was the hill I decided to die on today.
@tie L's on you, i read this entire conversation and still you didn't bother explaining the question rather you'd just argue with people. This is how average 9 y/o's are like now. Grow up and get a life
@Adrian Gołda A square number is defined as the product of an integer, i. e. a whole number, multiplied by itself. The square root of 8 is not an integer but a fraction. Therefore, your solution is false.
@tie This thread is too funny 😂 Full of people whose only source of joy is trying to one up against random strangers on the internet. Not everyone received your quality of education, and not everyone's first language is English. The nail on the coffin is that @tie is a Redditor. Go ahead, Mr. Intellectual, prove why all your haters are less of an intellectual than you!
A's in calculus, differential equations, matrix operations...then, I get this one wrong. I thought it was 16 because for some strange reason the question in my brain was: "which of these numbers is a squared number squared?" I didn't read the question properly!
English is not my first language and I was also confused with this question. Although I understand the meaning of every word but put together in this question didn't make any sense.
@MASTI TIME Can't you understand that some people aren't as smart as others? And stop calling us "dumb" because you didn't even explain and its pretty pathetic to scream "DUMB" in youtube comments.
@tagberlee So you support someone calling 50 different people dumb and not explaining his point in words and screaming unnecessary rude insults at others?
@tie Because people could read it as 'which of these square numbers (the squared number being 4) also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers that could be squared (2 * 2 = 4). Not saying this is right, but just to put in perspective how someone could interpret the question.
They chose this question because it is tricky, or else why would they choose it? It's a game show that is meant to be made in such a way. It's clear that you have seen this question before, and that's why you understand it. Not because you're intelligent or anything lol.
I've seen this question before as well, but to those who don't I can at least understand why the way it's worded is flawed.
@Your Idol not most ppl All ppl here obviously have nothing better to do at the age when they study that
0 likes
Matthew Marton2023-02-03 22:49:46 (edited 2023-02-03 22:50:43 )
The problem in people’s minds is that they don’t seem to be familiar with the mathematical term “square number”. It means a number that is a square of another whole number. The fist few square numbers are as follows: 1; 4; 9; 16; 25; 36; 49; 64 Now, the question is which of the possible answers is the sum of two other square numbers. In other terms, which one is a number that can be a sum of two of the numbers I listed above. It is a perfectly phrased question with a very simple answer. Our guy should have payed attention in school.
It's not a big deal either way. There are far more important things to worry about than to worry about something that can be taught in 5-10 minutes. The amount of disrespect is more surprising than anything, and it's shameful.
@tie tbf I also misinterpretted the question as which of these squared numbers is made with another squared number. I'm hoping that's what they also messed up on not that they couldn't do math but instead failed to read just like me.
@Petru Casella nah they worded it like that to make an easy problem difficult to understand. english is a dumb language and that problem is one of the reasons why.
Those of you arguing or putting down those saying it's hard to understand, yall are grasping at the only straws of intellectual you possess. OK good for you, you can understand a badly worded math question. By how hard or fast you are willing to jump at the argument, it strongly feels like deciphering math word problems is your only Forte in life.
Personally, I Excell at numbers, I could tell you it was "A" the melisecond it showed "A"
But I'm also smart enough to know that if putting down another's understanding of the wording or argue-flexing is all I got, then I don't have much. I mean, think about it
@Bryce Prochazka People who mock those who aren't very familiar with math concepts are also only discouraging those people from learning math at all, because it will only make those people view "math people" as arrogant jerks, and this will in turn give them negative associations to math. But I guess arrogant jerks don't care about that, as long as they can act superior; they are basically bullies, as far as I am concerned.
Most of the people here are dumb af it's question worth a 6 year old time anybody above 10 should be able to solve it within secs provided he's got the minimum basic education
@Tobi I take advices from intellects, so I'm gonna have to slide over this one ...get smarter everyone, it's not okay to be dumb, being dumb is just a function of how lazy y'all are
@Tobi now I'm highly convinced ur of extremely low intellect from the fact you dont understand what function stands for in that sentence, I do charity work so I will explain a function is not just a mathematical term or a biological action a function is used to relate between two thinks this can be via proportionality so the more the lazy you are the lesser you work and hence the lower amount of knowledge you have ...thank me later :) also quit embarrassing urself
@Tobi also your high use of words like lmao and 7th grade roasts such as stay mad and grow up just shows your Limited amount of knowledge and how u cope up by adding In 7th grade filling words like lmao...... grow up::)
@Jacob that's absolutely bullshit. Nice try but you are definitely a child with an overinflated ego lmfao. If you are truly over 20 you need to reconsider the life choices that led to you being so horrible to people Edit: or your just angry all the time because you get no pussy :/ I wish you luck in life, your going to need it. Adios hermano
@s_ so you call everyone who has basic reading comprehension skills a nerd? Anyways the question is simple. Which of those numbers is a sum(that means what you get when you add quantities) of two other numbers that are both perfect squares (squaring something means multiplying a value by it self, so perfect squares are values that when square rooted, you get a whole number). Good to see that most of this world doesn’t have basic reading skills! I showed that to my 12 year old cousin and she got it. Wait to be ignorant!
As a former math major, I have 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 memorized, but if I didn't, I think I would have a lot of difficulty trying all the different combinations of squares to figure it out, while under the pressure of the game show.
@Ekrem Papazoğlu A lot of high school math problems that were difficult for me tend to be because I had to throw the Pythagorean theory at it to solve it in some shape or form. So I’d say it’s a good idea to learn Pythagorean triplets to save time on calculations!
@Ekrem Papazoğlu I wasn't ever told "memorize 3^2+4^2=5^2". But those are the smallest integers that fit in the Pythagorean theorem, so they came up a lot.
@Ekrem Papazoğlu Those are called (primitive) Pythagorean triplets. (3,4,5) is one, another is (5,12,13). There's infinitely many of them and there are closed forms and algorithms for generating all possible such triplets.
Not really memorized as such when in school, but you keep seeing it a lot when doing geometry that you remember it. When learning about right triangles, the very first and simplest example is a 3-4-5 right triangle (hypotenuse of length 5, base and perpendicular of lengths 3 and 4)
I really don't think it takes too much time to brute force as well: highest option is 49=7^2. If you just try going for eliminating the wrong choices: 16-9=7, 16-4=12, 16-1=15, none of which are squares, so A is incorrect. But then when you start checking the second option, 25-16=9 is a square. Takes only 4 subtractions in total to find the answer.
You don't need to be a math major to have that memorized lol it's basic 8th grade math. Also, the angles of a 345 triangle are notably 37 and 53 deg. So that's that.
@Ekrem Papazoğlu they're not really memorised specifically ,but they're like the smallest triplet to fit in the Pythagorean theorem , so people generally remember it I assume.
I nice thing to notice is that when you take the difference between two adjacent squares, for example, you’ll get a specific odd number equal to those two roots added to each other: 4^2 - 3^2 = 4 + 3 5^2 - 4^2 = 5+4 You can use this to your advantage to find triplets with two adjacent integers (and can vary on it with other combinations for non adjacent ones) For example 3^2 being equal to 9 (an odd number), you can cut it into two, nearly equal halves to get the two other squares, which are 5 and 4 Another example, 7^2 is equal to 49, so 7 is included in the triplet 7^2 + 24^2 = 25^2
Since they didn't specify that the number had to be nonzero, one could have easily just taken the square root of any of the numbers, squared it, then added 0^2 to it and you would have gotten a square of 2 lower numbers.
So for 49, the highest numbers you can have 6^2+6^2, lowest numbers 4^2, 4^2 (since root of 49/2 more than 4). So you have 6 combinations, 4^2+4^2=32, 4^2+5^2=41, 4^2+6^2=52, (you could stop there since numbers will only increase) 5^2+6^2,=61 6^2+6^2=72. None of these numbers are 49 so it's not 49. For 36: 4^2+4^2 = 32, 4^2+5^2=41 so not 36. for 25: 3^2+3^2=18, 3^2+4^2=25 it's 25.
@Ankit Singh bro its whole squares, they didnt mention integers because it aint apart of the question
2 likes
Michael F2022-10-27 12:49:52 (edited 2022-10-27 12:51:18 )
Well not really. Firstly there's no pressure he has all the time in the world to figure it out. It's not like a quiz where you get timed out and have to think fast. There's only 4 answers it has to be one of them so there are hardly any combinations to test. These are the squares of 4,5,6, and 7. So it's immediately obvious that 1^2 can't be one of the 2 because adding or subtracting one from the answers shown won't give you a square. In 6 cases this is obvious (the lower or higher square is right there in front of you and you can see it's more than 1 away) for the other 2 it should be trivial to see that neither 15 nor 50 are squares.
Similar logic for 2^2. 16-4 = 12 isn't a square (the next lower square is 9) and all the other answers are more than 4 apart from each other. That strongly suggests one of the squares is going to be 3^2 (if we get any higher than 3, then it would need to be 2 of the answers shown but we can see adding any 2 of these, say 16+25 is 41, 16+36 is 52 - so one number isn't a square and the other additions are getting too high - the answer must be less than 49. That means 3^2 must be one of them, that's a difference of 9 and 2 of the answers shown have a difference of 9. So we can see B (25) is (A) 16 + 9, which is 3^2.
You need to be a math major to get a question that simple right? I didnt know about 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, i just thought of the first perfect squares, 4, 9 & 16, and realized 9 + 16 = 25
@Xenomnipotent haha,i did not had to be a maths major to write that. Though i am not a maths major but an engineering undergrad in India's best college and world's 250th best uni
there arent even that many combinations (that you cannot rule out immediately), but i think the pressure would have made this 10 times harder for me as well.
Bruh. I have this memorized since 5th grade xD If I hadn't, it'd take me like 30 more seconds to test my options until I find the answer. The question is elementary!
Seriously? It shouldn't take more than 2 minutes or so, really. You need to test 4 or 5 numbers, each of them taking a few seconds.
16. 1^2 = 1. You're left with 15, which isn't a square. Try 2^2 = 4. You're left with 12, which doesn't work. Try 3^2 = 9. Left with 7, which doesn't work, move to the next.
By the time you test 3^2 on 25, and you're left with 16, which is 4^2, the answer should be obvious. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes at most. I found the video kinda baffling, like the guy didn't even understand what the question meant.
I have a degree in mathematics too, and I struggled. I did get the right answer in plenty of time, but I also wonder how I would have fared under pressure. I am not very good at all with mental arithmetic, especially when under pressure. I know (3, 4, 5), but (9, 16, 25) is less recognizable.
So that's what the question was referring to! Another commenter mentioned the question would've been more intuitive if the they used "squared" for the 2nd square.
Maybe if you try the minimum strategy, you just keep analysing every number and the smallest parts you can divide it that also are square numbers, therefore you come to the conclusion that the only option is 25
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
@Niels Bohr I need you to understand that neither math majors nor mathematicians spend their time doing arithmetic in their heads and most probably aren’t that good at it.
@S' • Shibam The audience were not that dumb since the question was very easy, but a bit tricky at the same time. Just we need to have a great presence of mind, and be careful with each line of any question.
Also the audience polls have revealed a fact about us humans, that is in nature 45% of humans are careless and egoistic, 22% are meticulous, and rest 23% or 10% are dumb.
@Vikram Tete 0 is not a number. If 0 were a number then 0/0 would have been 1. Ramanujan had asked the same question, whether 0 can be considered as a number or not. He also concluded that 0/0 can be written as 1,0 and infinity. But if zero were a number then there would be no possibility for 0/0 to be undefined
There's an even more cringe-worthy example on the British version of WWTBAM where the audience cost some poor fellow considerably more money because 87% of them could not identify the opening paragraph of the novel Dracula--and the contestant went along with the overwhelming majority. They applauded themselves too.
@mathematician 0 definitely is a number. 0/0 is undeterminable, not undefined. A number is just the useful abstraction of groups having a certain size. When you see 5+5, you don't think about 5 apples being added to another group of 5 apples, you abstract away from the physical and just do 5+5. It's the same for 0. It is just the abstraction away from reality into the theoretical of a group with size nothing
I guess when you're under a lot of pressure, knowledge can sometimes fall back in mind. It's very stressful. Not everyone can do this on the back of their mind. Plus they had to say the answer without having notes so it wasn't overly clear.
Stop this smug "we Asians know everything about math, and we are above you" attitude, ffs - it is extremely irritating.
YOU have several people who find math very difficult AS WELL, just like literally all other countries. And contrary to what people with your attitude seem to believe, math doesn't make you some kind of superior specimen who has permission to mock and ridicule people who find math difficult. Get off your high horses.
I think the reason why most people got it wrong was because they misunderstood what “sum” meant and initially went 4*4 to get 16 which is why everyone put optionA
A lot of people, including myself, chose A because they didn't put much attention to what the question asked. They thought "a number which is a product of two square numbers".
Ah so this is the correct way to solve it. I did it by gradually checking each square combination, so 4+9, 4+16, 9+16. It worked out because the numbers are small.
Non-native speaker here and understood it immediately. It's just that when you teach math daily, you automatically learn how to comprehend questions like these.
@Mister Incognito You got the definitions mixed up. 8 can of course be the square of a decimal number but it's not a square number which is defined as the product of an integer with itself (at least according to wikipedia)
But I think it was pretty clear the guy didn't get the question wrong because he was confused about the definition of square number (or else he could have just asked for clarification). He was just too nervous or bad at math.
@Mister Incognito They said that the numbers must be natural because the questions asks about square numbers and not squares of any number. Also 9 + 8 is 17. Well done.
@@trunestor I'm not a native speaker, it's completely unambiguously, there is no other way to understand it; What makes this question kinda tricky is that you think you have it wrong, because it was way to easy
@War Tome There are a ton of sick proofs of Pythagoras (like, a ton. IIRC president Garfield came up with one.). My favorite is this:
Take a right triangle with legs of lengths `a` and `b`, and a hypotenuse of length `c`. Duplicate it, and place the two together with a common hypotenuse, such that they form an `a × b` rectangle. Now duplicate this rectangle, and put the second perpendicular to the first, and position them so that they share only a common vertex. Now around this figure, circumscribe a square by continuing the outside edges of our figure. You'll find that the sidelength of this new square is `a + b`, and we have two new squares formed by "negative space", one of sidelength `a`, and another of sidelength `b`. Now keeping our large square intact, we reposition our 4 right triangles (remember them?) such that their right angles are in common with those of the large square, and they do not overlap. Now, their hypotenuses should together form another square, this time with sidelength `c` (the length of the hypotenuse).
Now, we note that in the first position, the areas of the four triangles, plus the areas of the two squares (`a²` and `b²`) must add up to the area of the large square, while in the second position, the areas of the four triangles, plus the area of the new, single square (`c²`) must add up to the area of the same large square. Canceling out what is common between these, we see that `a² + b² = c²`.
This, of course, is not a proof, it's more of a loose guide on how to construct the proof yourself. It's much more satisfying to see the actual figures than to just hear them described.
@emerald Well, yes, however quite famously you can form a right triangle with legs of length 3 and 4, and hypotenuse of length 5, meaning that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, which is exactly what the question is asking for.
It's the opposite for me. I instantly catch it's about Pythagorean theorem, but need a good minute or two to remember the number that's always get used for the basic example
@Mister Incognito A "square number" must be an integer. That's part of the meaning of the term. The term would otherwise be meaningless, as all numbers have square roots.
There is nothing confusing in the question, it is perfectly well formulated. For 16 grand you can take your freakin time and compute this. And the stupid audience should not give a freakin answer if they’re not sure about it. That’s such a tragedy.
The question might require a bit of thought, but it's not because of the wording. People love to blame the wording. If the wording is the issue, then what would be a less "confusing" wording?
For some reason I initially thought that only one was NOT the sum of the squares. I figured it out in time, but there's a lot of pressure on the person sitting there.
It is applicable for triangles with one angle measuring 90 degrees
It says that the side opposite to the right angle(called hypotenuse) bears the following relation with the other two sides (called perpendicular and base)
(Hypotenuse)² = Perpendicular² + Base²
I currently study in 10th grade(In India) so I know the theorem
Here,we are even asked to prove the theorem which is pretty simple.
The question is very clear, purist could argue it should specify non zero integer numbers but if you can think of that then the question is obvious enough for you that you can still answer correctly. The most shocking is that he never tries to figure out which numbers it could be before answering.
When you understand the meaning of the term square number and you see the keyword "SUM" there, it shouldn't be a problem. The problem is, just like me at first people thought it was 16-->4=2x2
@PA DABOUM no need to mention non zero because if you take zero as one of the squares then the other square will be 16 which is not less than 16. The question clearly says the sum of two smaller squares
I misunderstood the question. I never considered the sum of 2 DIFFERENT square numbers lol. I was trying to make the two smaller squares be the same number. Ima baaaad math student.
@Asdfssdfghgdfy yes because it cost you a lot of money, not only in this example game but also getting ripped off by banks and stuff because +-X/ are really too simple for most stuff that involves a lot of money. If you dont have a lot of money you could state it is kinda pointless to know and understand but if you do you wont be in the situation where you end up with no money.
Its not about all the math stuff and stories in the books it is the way of thinking about solving problems what it gives you when you study it, when you have a basic deeper understanding of how stuff around you work and why you can use that understanding to acquire large amounts of money which removes the stress of not having enough money every month and more free time in your life to perse happiness
i just picked D because 2 and 3 becomes 4 and 9, then i just added them like two strings in a programing language resulting in 49 xD i might be coding too much
@Paige Herrin There is no such numbers because 2 is not a square number. If there existed such a number A² = B²+B² | A, B ∈ ℤ. Then A² = 2B² which means A = √(2)᛫B, if B is an integer then A can't be integer since it's the product of an integer and irrational number.
It was sort of a poorly written question. I've never in my life heard the term "square number" but I've heard "perfect square number" or "perfect square" thousands of times . Perhaps its where you grow up, idk.
I completely misunderstood the question and thought 16 was correct I thought it was 2^2*2^2=4*4=16, like it was the number squared, then squared again. (I'm terrible at explaining.)
Exactly. If the question had asked which of the square numbers also happens to be the sum of two "different" smaller square numbers he and the audience probably would have nailed it.
@Gabriel It´s very relevant to say integers and not whole numbers. Because a square number can be made out of two negatvies numbers as well. It´s the definition of it.
As soon as I read the question I immediately thought "Ah yes, pythagoras theorum on how to calculate the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle." when I read the answers I knew it had to be 25 because it's the easiest sum that I learned in grade 2 (3²+4²=5²). Why didn't the audience memorise that one specific equasion? It's clearly the easiest way of remembering how to add square numbers, I litterally learned what a square number was when I was 4 how could 70% of the audience not get this right?
I think he knows math but he got stumped under the pressure and stress of the whole situation. I could figure out it was B, but I had enough time to pause the video and try to think on my own in the peace and silence of this living room, and I also got stumped at first. It made me even more frustrated because I felt dumb by being stumped at an apparently simple problem. I hope the participant recovered from that unfortunate day, learned whatever lesson he had to learn and makes enough money to live a happy lifestyle.
This question (in my opinion) is a bit easier, who have learnt trigonometry or know about Pythagoras theorem. Because there, we're often doing squares of smaller integers, adding them & then taking square roots of the sum. ((base's length)^2 + (perpendicular's length^2))= (hypotenuse's square)^2
Tbf the question is intentionally written in a very confusing and misleading way. It’s easy to get a question like this right when you’re at home on your computer.
@Handsome Stranger i dont think anyone cares if anyone cares, go to bed. See? I can do the same to you, its not constructive at all. All i said was sorry, no need to be so aggressive
@Wounded Angel If you can’t answer a very basic math question like this one then you are an idiot. This question is so simple it’s like one of the questions from “Are You Smarter Than An Eighth Grader”
@Jazza BigHits I got it wrong too. I was thinking that 2 is a square-able number and 2 +2 is 4 which squared is 16. I personally just dont like the wording of the question.
@George It was perfectly clear: “Which of these squares is the sum of two squares?” It’s 25, because it’s 16 + 9. The funniest thing about the video is the contestant had literally no clue what was going on from start to finish. What a dumbass, lol 😂 I guess anyone can get into college nowadays.
@Handsome Stranger It really was clear , it meant which of the square numbers is also a number which is a sum of two square numbers, in this case 25 is the answer as 3^2+4^2=9+16=25. It is so easy. And so many people do not know it makes me feel disturbed to see how this generation has gone braindead.
@ArkenLegend the two previous square numbers, the square numbers are 0,1,4,9,16,25,36. They have to be consecutive: 0 and 1, 1 and 4, 9 and 16 only 9 and 16 make another square (25)
@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago dude I’m in high school and we’ve learned square roots and all that but this question made little sense at all it wasn’t clear
@Handsome Stranger dude talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "Hurr durr this guy called people dumb now let me show him how hurtful names are by berating him constantly." Shut the fuck up. Also he's right: the contestant, nor the audience has any excuse for getting that wrong. That's not to say that it's their fault, but when our culture devalues mathematics to the point where only those in stem fields feel it is important, we get stuff like this happening.
@Handsome Stranger that was left up for posterity. Look at the time stamp of the video; Right now I'm 19, in my second year of honours math at university. I'm not taking that video down exactly because I find it cool and a little funny. Also, for someone who says my social life is on the internet, you're doing well to respond to literally every comment on this thread within minutes with the cringiest of zoomer slang. L + ratio + fuck you
@Handsome Stranger damn. Gonna go back to getting educated while you make your 22nd (I counted) post on this thread. I write long replies because I don't want to seem like a pestering idiot. Who do we know like that?
@Smol Boye you’re the type of guy to count comments. Not like you have anything better to do. I left this thread a long time ago. I’m literally in your head. This how I know you literally get no bitches 😂😂
@Handsome Stranger I hope one day you or someone close to you can see how you sound one the internet. Not sure I could accurately describe what you are if I tried. I hope you're trolling dude, if not then good luck with life I guess.
What's really disturbing to me is everyone in the comment section claiming people who can't solve this are idiots. Yet these very same smart people are powerless subordinates working under the very idiots they mock.
@Kenny Ryan You may not. But many others do. That silent partner,executive,shareholder,director,program manager, general/regional/district manager,project lead etc. Even the idiot child who was handed his/her leadership position. At some point in your working life you worked for an idiot.
ngl I completely forgot what square numbers were, but once I checked the question was of course easy. That's how little I use math in my day to day life
Almost all math is difficult for me. I've never been able to understand it even when it was spelled out for me. Now, Humanities on the other hand, is a completely different story.
@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago I have an A in math in one of the best(and hardest) schools in my country, and i still didn't get it right, sometime u just get confused
Ok the way I understood it is 16 is a square number 4.4 which is also can be a square number??? idk I'm neither good at math or English speaker. if anyone has free time to explain i'm here.
@dark parker if its about a topic you dont know then sure. But its not like you cant take your time or anything. Pretty sure if a question like this was asked to me even in this setting I would have gotten it right
@TheGaming100 You are correct in this regard. But there's a reason less intelligent people hire a bunch of PhDs and masters to work for them. What they lack in intelligence they make up for in social ability. Networking is the name of the game when it comes to closing deals, getting funding and getting promotions. Not saying intelligent people have no social skills. But in my personal experiences and observations no matter where I went. There were only a handful of really intelligent individuals running things. Most of the time in my experience the really smart people were the builders and innovators working for their lesser counter parts who cut the checks for them. Thats just the way it went. Why work harder when you have the money to hire someone way smarter than you to create ideas and put money in your pocket.
@Handsome Stranger bro your name is “handsome stranger” and you have stylized squidward pfp, and you’re telling this dude HE has problems talking to women?
@Jmu76featuring The question is asking what the ‘sum’ would be. Sum can be used as a word for addition or an equation in general, which must be where most people got confused. It’s asking what two square numbers can be added together to create one of the numbers listed.
Confusing question or not, it's a frikken game. With multiple choice answers! I had elemtary school questions harder than this. If someone can't figure out a simple math problem like that, they're limely the sort to blow it all on scratch off tickets. Since, you know, they suck at math. He still won $1000 today. Pretty good for a day's work at the game show.
Ok, I suck at math. But even I got this question right. There’s nothing vague or unclear about the way the question is posed. It asks for a “square” number (something that is something else “times” something else) that also is the “sum” of two other smaller square numbers (the sum being something “plus” something). It really isn’t difficult by any stretch of the imagination and the fact that so many in the audience did get it wrong is worrying.
oh shut up, no one is impressed. all it takes is forgetting what a square number is. and im sure plenty of them do since they aren't really used in a grown-up's everyday life
@Michele Rich You shouldn’t have to ‘apply’ square numbers to know what a square number is. Most people don’t apply multiplication or division in everyday life, but they should still know that. This guy got into college, and doesn’t know what a square number is 🤦🏻
@Kenny Ryan how come you’re so arrogant, calling others stupid and brain dead when the question can be confusing, especially under pressure, people do stupid things.
Sure you’re the smartest person in the world the best actually in maths and everyone that makes a mistake and is slow is stupid and brain dead, everyone who doesn’t know maths up to an arbitrary level are idiots. Despite living life perfectly normal and functioning in society.
Imagine you being a teacher, it would be so great what happens when a student makes a mistake when encountering a new problem.
For me, maths would be concerning when calculating the price of everything I’ll buy in store, or key frames and Bézier curves. Not something about the rate that the universe expands - x .
Not everything in someone’s life is maths unfortunately the time he had to use maths it was a slap to the face and confusing, it takes time to calculate each 4 options and line up the square numbers mentally.
@panda it's not at all surprising if the question is a little confusing (which I think it's not) because it's a game show involving real money. What do you expect 2+2 ?
Here is the thing, this.... plays out every day when people get asked for extended warranties, loan interest rates, currency exchange rates, sales tax, income tax, life insurance, penalty fees etc etc.
Every day people think it doesn't matter and every day people who are bad at maths get screwed because "they don't like working things out". This question was unforgivably easy and this chap lost a cars worth of money because he didn't pay attention. The audience egged him on driving a cars worth of money off a proverbial cliff. Every day your maths teacher thinks, there goes another fool, who is going to get screwed over for the rest of his life because he refuses to believe he can work out this stuff that I tried to explain today, there are literally no people with an average level of education that couldn't piece this together given this amount of time and motivation but instead every day people borrow to much, sign up for lousy extended warranties or end up with penalty fees because they can't be bothered to try to work out how to do things the cheaper way, all the idiots who can't get this question right just put less effort in, it really isn't hard if you know how to square a number, by multiplying two identical numbers. If you went to school, someone spent a long time trying to tell you this. Everything else is effort. It's not hard it is just laziness and that is why you don't have a few hundred grand house, and why you lose a proverbial cars worth of money most years, it really is that easy. Check the discounts, check the tax, check the interest rates, check how much you are spending on booze or netflix or holiday insurance or car insurance or job promotions or why you do your job for that company, or who cares about how hard you work? If you really think no one cares about how hard you work, then you are lazy and stupid, if you can answer all the questions above, you will do fine my fellow youtuber. You have got what it takes to get a regular decent income and put money down on that great house.
For any one who thinks this doesn't really matter, or who thinks the guy tried his best, or he got some bad luck, or thinks that I am some stuck up twat... Good luck, you will need all the luck you get and hope you win those stupid scratch cards, yeah some one has to win and it might be you, statistically it won't be but hey who knows, it might be you, or it might be the guy who calculated the system for scratch cards who gets to live in your nice house and drive a nice car?
Don't wait for fate to sort your life out, just learn maths, it's either right or wrong.
It’s quite hard to remain calm and think properly under stress. Also, the wording of the problem WAS extremely incomplete, ambiguous to the point where it made is challenging to interpret what the question was trying to ask.
With all of this going on, now you have to mentally run through your perfect squares (1,4,9,16,25,36), keep track of them and find two of them that you can get one of the answers. Extremely difficult for many when under pressure, which I think you’re the one too narcissistic and ignorant to comprehend so as a result, you retort to acting like a condescending keyboard warrior who pretentiously believes they are a genius for arguing with people online.
@Damian Justice No hindsight about it. I saw stupidity as soon as I watched the video and I called it out. Simple Q. Dude should have known the answer. That’s that.
Continuing your theme: 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, etc. This shit ain’t rocket science 😂 We all did square numbers in Elementary School. And if a kid as dumb as this guy can get into a college without understanding what a square number is, then it’s no wonder the Chinese and Japanese are beating us in global trade and business.
Look at the dudes face at 2:19. He genuinely has no clue what the host is trying to explain to him. Our education system needs improving.
@Kenny Ryan If anything really, stupidity is you ignoring everything that I just explained from a different perspective that the contestant was most likely under just to uphold your own initial bias. Simple as that, hindsight.
@Damian Justice This shit is obvious dude. Square numbers. Know your shit. Being ‘under pressure’ doesn’t excuse stupidity. If he was unable to say that the first three letters of the Roman alphabet are A, B and C would you try to explain that by saying “Ah well he was under pressure”.
This stuff is basic common knowledge man. And this dude just didn’t have it 🤷🏻♂️ And that’s what is worrying.
@Kenny Ryan ”Continuing your theme: 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, etc. This shit ain’t rocket science 😂 We all did square numbers in Elementary school.” > Thanks for proving my point even further that with the multitudinous amount of numbers to LITERALLY keep track in your head under stress and self-evaluation wary and the fact that this guy didn’t have scratch paper to write his potential thoughts down, it’s really not as surprising he got it wrong as you are blowing it out of proportion to be for the sake of exposing your ego. Your “grade school” rhetoric really doesn’t apply since these are problems that yes, we can easily solve through paper, with an instructor showing us step by step, and so forth and more easily accessible materials that assist us. The contestant had NONE of that whatsoever, so this comparison does not uphold your argument.
*”And if a kid as dumb as this guy can get into college without understanding what a square number is, then it’s no wonder why the Japanese and Chinese are beating us in global trade.*”
> To be fair, one can theoretically be competent in business and trade without applying squares in real life problems. You don’t really need to specifically understand how squares work to do well in business. So, I’m not sure why this rhetoric was added.
“Look at the dude’s face at 2:19 . He genuinely has no clue what the host is trying to explain to him”
> His reaction doesn’t really make it that obvious as that can also be interpreted as him astonished at the thoughts of losing a large sum of money for getting the question wrong.
”Our education system needs improving”
> Finally a sentiment that I VASTLY agree with. Yes, our education system is flawed on so many levels. Teachers are extremely undervalued in American culture to where society treats it as some kind of back up job as opposed to a valued occupation like an engineer, lawyer, or doctor.
It's not a difficult question but it can take some time to work through. I know what a square number is but didn't know all the square numbers off the top of my head. I had to work through it for a minute or so to get it. Being pressured on the game show certainly wouldn't help, even for an audience member.
@Ayush Mishra I agree that he could had taken his time. He probably would had gotten the question right if he had knew what squares were. It did take me about 2 - 3 minutes to know 25 was most likely the answer.
@Damian Justice ya that's the point. He should have thought for a while. Believe me there is no other statement to put Pythagoras theorem more clearly. It's what it is.
@Damian Justice I didn't use Pythagoras theorem as such. It just popped to my mind the 3 4 5 triplets as there are only two squares which add up to 25 which is the Pythagoras theorem.
I paused the video just before he asked the audience and I probably had it paused for the equivalent duration of the video (3 mins) before I finally got it. Somehow I'm doing final grade advanced maths in high school
@Firenzar Frenzy it happens. I want to know one thing what's like advanced math in high school? Are there multiple levels of maths in high school where you study? Just curious
@Ayush Mishra Going from highest down We have extension, advanced, standard and one below that I can’t remember The HSC (in Australia) gives a few questions that are the same across all levels but most are tailored for your course difficulty We get one exercise every lesson (so 3 a week) but sometimes the repetitive ones we only do half. Do not pick advanced imho if you cannot do basic calculations (expanding/factorising) mentally at moderate speed or if you don’t learn well under time constraints. (Quite frankly I think I’m gonna crash and burn because I tend to only understand topic better than my classmates when I have time to absorb it all. Hence I’ve been left in the dust recently)
@Firenzar Frenzy ok so it means that you are a grade 12 student. I'm a second year college student and I took physics, chemistry and mathematics in my grade 12. I don't know the level of grade 12 maths in Australia but here in India since we take jee examination for college entrance(engineering) which is quite difficult and contains a huge syllabus so I presume we have a similar syllabus as of yours, but I'm not sure.
@Handsome Stranger It's certain that that big percentage of the crowd is really stupid....99% percent of under 15 kids would answer this correctly in my country and I think in most countries.... English is not even my first language and yet the question was clear af to me so I don't know why are you saying that the question wasn't clear
Sawm tluanga See being successful is great but you should certainly have that bare minimum (because this question only needs bare minimum iq) to slove such an easy question or else I would have a really tough time believing that you cleared school which apparently most of the people in the crowd must have did
@Handsome Stranger Well it's clear how big of an idiot you are when you called my country dirty ass.... It's also clear who is the idiot here and who's crying
@Handsome Stranger Whatever country he’s from, at least he’s not an innumerate imbecile like yourself and this contestant who are unable to do basic elementary school math
@Handsome Stranger Apartment in Manhattan worth $700,000 😛 Let me know if you need help understanding that big number. I’ll give you a clue: That’s not a square number 😂
@Handsome Stranger lol just look at the likes for each of your comments. Like every single time you open your mouth less and less people can stand the stench of bullshit. Not to mention anyone who you talk to (read: disparage) gets easily 10x the support. Shut the fuck up. You keep digging yourself a bigger hole because you think prodding others is funny. Here's some news: nobody is mad, just a little annoyed and shocked at how somebody can be so stupid and confident at the same time. If this is how you get your kicks then I feel bad for your eventual (god forbid) significant other.
@Kenny Ryan For someone smart enough to get to a point where you own a near million dollar house you should be able to identify a troll who’s hungry for attention, which you are providing.
@Handsome Stranger damn you're stupid... and to rely on just a single kids insult hoping to make others mad is kinda depressing. "TaKe ThE L" how old are you
@Kenny Ryan it’s a masters in architecture. You’re literally a middle aged man commenting on YouTube. You live alone in a little ass apartment. Dude has no girl at 36 😂 that’s tuff
@Handsome Stranger Architecture? Good Lord! And you can’t do basic square numbers? Did you go to the same girls finishing school as this fool contestant? 🤣
I have a different girl every weekend. That’s what happens when you have money, coz you can do basic math. Not that you’d know 😛
@Kenny Ryan yea I must have huh? I could have went to weinie hut junior university and still wouldn’t be as lonely and pathetic as you. You’re 36! 36! 😂
@Tyx Fair. Ya most people would get it instantly. It’s a question for school kids. Check out the dude’s expression at 2:20. He has literally no clue what’s going on.
@Kenny Ryan it’s 3am where you are right now. You’re 36 on YouTube at 3am. Anybody who has to say those things about themselves is lying . “Im popular” you lame af 😂 you’re 36 using emojis. With no wife. In an apartment 😂😂 please just stop
@Handsome Stranger someone whose username on YouTube starts with handsome is telling this? You know actually you have no life and you want to feel intelligent by commenting here. Bad move
@Handsome Stranger America would be happy to dump someone like you who doesn't know basic maths and is only contributing to make their average iq go down 😂
Sitting in my comfy chair, giving my cat scritches, and drinking my hot chocolate, I was able to come up with the answer pretty quickly. Sitting under hot studio lights though with money on the line and without the safety net of being able to leisurely work through the problem, I probably come up the wrong answer as well.
@Handsome Stranger I note that you haven't reworded it here in your comment in a way you consider to be clearer. Remember, this was supposed to be a $16,000 question. I have to know lots more than three squared plus four squared equals five squared to earn $16,000. I'm sure you do too.
I can't believe that the audience has no knowledge in maths. Of course we haven't all done maths studies, but it's elementary. It's like I was asking what is Pythagore's theorem. Everyone should have basic knowledge in maths.
PS : I'm french, I'm still learning english, please don't blame me for my faults.
imo this is really an easy question and English isn't even my first language. But I understand that many people can interpret the question incorrectly, which is a shame
@Handsome Stranger Even people on here for whom English isn’t their first language are remarking on how easily the question is worded.
I was up early this morning as I had to catch a train to Brussels for a business meeting. Life is easy and fun when you’re able to do math. No wonder you’re frustrated and angry 😄😋
@Ayush Mishra I was thinking the same thing. He comes across as very angry and frustrated with a load of childish personal insults. Probably very unhappy and embarrassed that he can’t understand basic math questions
@Tyx In the World there are examples of people who never went to elementary school but still were smarter and much more successful than you'd ever be. Imagine being so proud and arrogant just cause you were nerd and knows a answer to a simple math question
@Smol Boye Aye bro, just leave it, these dumbheads think that mathematics is just a bookish subject and has no value in real life. No use arguing with fools who live in their own fairytale world.
@Wounded Angel well he isn't smart for knowing, even a 3 year old can know that, yea but on the contrary they are super stupid for not to be able to do it. I can easily fool them all in everything, that's how dumb they get.
@Kenny Ryan imagine getting harassed for pointing out that not knowing very basic maths (or being able to f-cking read and comprehend a simple and clear question) is a very bad sign of intelligence
@Madison J why are you screaming? Relax. Your blood pressure about to go up over a comment 😂 it’s New Year’s Eve. Go do something with your grandkids. I got you mad af
@first name last name you got me man. I got you randoms coming out the woodworks 😂 y’all done formed a super villain team to try to stop me. All y’all holding L’s
@Handsome Stranger Yup. I’m Head of EMEA Regulatory Policy for a US Bank 😀 You need a head for numbers for this type of work. So this dumb contestant won’t be getting an interview with us any time soon 😂
@Ryan You just need to know what the term "square number" means and you're golden. This show is about knowing things and this person, nor the audience knew what a square number is.
The answer and question itself wasn't difficult. The main purpose of it I firstly didn't understand what do they mean by that. I've spent about few minutes to make an answer
I just adore how absolutely arbitrary this whole argument came down to being layered within the discussion that whether or not answering a single math questions broadly constitutes your intelligence.
@Handsome Stranger Not day and night. Whenever I pick up my iPad I see a few more notifications of comments on my original post - and I laugh. I do find it funny seeing you try to defend the stupidity of this contestant.
If you doubt I’m Head of EMEA Regulatory Policy at one of the US’s biggest banks then ask me a question about what my job entails right here. Go on! I guarantee you I’ll answer it fully. Coz that’s my job. And I promise I’ll go easy on you 😉 I’ll try not to use too many big numbers in my answer 😂
@Kenny Ryan you’re typing paragraphs. Telling me to ask you about your emails. You have too much time on your hands 😂 you’re 36 with no wife living in an apartment. I beat you in life already. About to be 40 and no woman wants you :( I see why you’re so mad
@Handsome Stranger my goodness. This generation is so dumb… half the geometry questions in the SAT have the 3-4-5 right triangle. I knew the answer without solving it. And those of you who think you don’t need math in real life, you are up for a big surprise. Everything involves math. Even if you end up being a used car salesman, you need to understand how a down payment and car loan work. And if you ever make some money, you need to figure out your mortgage, your 401k plan, how to invest in stocks, your taxes. All of those require a good understanding of math. That’s why the younger generations will not do as well as their parents. The younger generations make fun of the boomers, but their only hope is their boomer parents to die and leave behind some money. What a sorry way to waste a life. Bunch of losers are all they are.
@Handsome Stranger What does the audience have to say for getting that question wrong? It's literally an 8th grade question and yet they couldn't figure it out. Oh you're prolly coping cuz u couldn't answer that either lol. Keep coping, you're doing great at it.
@Michele Rich alphabet song? What are you talking about? I never stroked my ego nor did I say you didn't know it. Well it's you who said that's since it's not used often it's natural to not remember it,right? So by your logic almost no one should remember the order of alphabets.
@Cup_of_H2O no, idiot. that wouldn't logically follow. that'd be more like saying since we don't count numbers everyday, it'd be like forgetting that 8 comes after 7. just get over it. a square number isn't even in the same fucking ballpark as remembering the alphabet. jesus christ.
@Cup_of_H2O in the streets... smh you’re lame af. All that commenting just to get my attention and you’re wasting your opportunity :( no fun. Another L given to another peasant
@Handsome Stranger Dam that's the best insult you could come up with? Hahahahaha. Oh and I'm having a world of fun roasting a kid who has a million L's to hand out(which no one gives a fuck about btw).
Some of you claim one can forget what a square number is just because they don't use square numbers in their everyday life. However, I'm ready to bet every American knows about Washington's wooden teeth. Do you need to know it in your everyday life? Of course not. Do you remember it anyway? Of course you do. Same thing goes for these basic concepts. What's the difference? Knowing basic math is even more important. Also, the question was crystal clear, nothing ambiguous about it, you just need to pay attention.
@Cup_of_H2O The question itself was incomplete because it could have easily been interpreted in different ways. That’s why it took me a minute or two to figure out what the question was asking as well as how the multiple choices mathematically coincide as possible answers to the question. In the SAT for example, as flawed and inaccurate the test is, at least their questions are complete and use the right information that won’t often confuse the test taker.
@Cup_of_H2O > ”Well by your logic he can’t speak English because he was under stress”
That literally has zero comparison to the argument I was making. No English Language Arts question was even present in the question. Let alone was the math question itself even coherent with its English. Lmao So, this comparison sucks.
@Eduard Khil I think a better argument to those people is that they simply just see zero value in math because they have no interest in it thus making them not remember basic concepts like square roots, rational numbers. Complex numbers, square numbers and so forth. Personally, I had the same mindset throughout middle school until I realized that the skills required to learn math take logical problem solving skills, which is essential in life. The content itself could arguably not be useful in life, but it’s without a doubt that in some careers, like lawyers for example, strengthening your logical skill set by practicing a few math problems a day won’t hurt at all. Studies have even shown that math majors tend to do as well as the same in performance quality as philosophy and English majors on the LSAT. It’s because math is strongly logical based. So, I would also disagree about the sentiment math being useless.
@Damian Justice That's also a very solid argument. I didn't bring it up because most people will just respond with something like "I don't need to know what 2x+1 means when I ask the butcher for a steak". But you're absolutely right. Even if you don't need it, it's still great practice for building solid logical thinking.
@Eduard Khil I think this whole “we’re never going to use piecewise functions in the real world so why learn it” mentality is a bad thing since it negatively affects how students perceive math, so they put less effort.
@Sigurd H.S who’s us? Y’all are @ing me cause y’all are mad. I’ve never said my age once. Cry more
0 likes
Bob Brown2022-01-01 23:26:49 (edited 2022-01-01 23:32:05 )
@Deathtrooper204 in real life just about everything that involves making money requires some form of math… ask your elders who are well off..
1 like
Bob Brown2022-01-01 23:28:44 (edited 2022-01-01 23:30:46 )
@Eduard Khil you don’t need math to ask the butcher for a steak but you need math to make money to pay for the steak… to make more money than minimum wage… I assume flipping burgers in McDonald’s doesn’t require much math knowledge.
@Damian Justice I agree with you. When they are mowing the lawn of someone who works for Google, they will realize how useful math is but it will be too late. They cannot turn the clock back and go back to high school. The problem is the parents of the dumb kids are dumb and uneducated. The kids don’t know how life works; they depend on their parents and other people around them for guidance. Poor kids surrounded by dumb adults turn our dumb and uneducated as a result. Trust me, well educated rich people explain to their kids how life works and insist that their kids take advanced algebra, calculus, honors English, and honors history in high school. Once the children of the dumb uneducated adults fall behind the rich kids in high school, they never catch up with them. The worst misfortune a kid can have is to have dumb and uneducated parents.
@Damian Justice you said he couldn't answer that cuz he was under pressure,right? Basic math. So he shouldn't even have been able to speak English cuz you know,he was under pressure?
@Damian Justice English language arts wasn't in the question? Then why tf are most people saying the question was confusing? I don't find any confusion nor am I talking about English arts in the question.
@Cup_of_H2O > ” You said he couldn’t answer that cuz he was under pressure, right? Basic math. So he shouldn’t even been able to speak English because you know, he was under pressure.”
What? Just because you are under pressure does not mean that it prevents you from speaking. It essentially prevents you from thinking as logically or as rationally as opposed to if you are not under pressure. Not that you would understand since you’re not the one going through the pressure, meaning your comment is taken for hindsight. This is basic psychology. Lmao
@Cup_of_H2O > ”English language arts wasn’t in the question? Then why tf are most people saying the question was confusing.”
> Maybe because it wasn’t an English question, it was a math question hence why English language arts wasn’t in the questions.... maybe? lol also people find the question confusing because the wording of the question made it difficult to grasp what square numbers where they referring since none of the multiple choice answers were square numbers. So, it left the viewer to have to figure out exactly what they meant by square number and which square numbers are equal to the answer 25. Obviously people know how square numbers work, but the it’s without a doubt the question made that objective seem dubious.
@Damian Justice What? Square numbers weren't in the question? How many brain cells doesn one need to figure out those were? It's literally the first pythogorean triple and even if I accept the person in hotseat was under pressure (bullshit) what about 50% of the prople? They were literally sitting there with no pressure,what excuse do they have to give it wrong? Besides if it's not English language arts then why was it confusing? What was dubious in the question?
@Damian Justice Aww thinking logically? What about English grammar? No that doesn't count right. And the OP was talking about audience. What excuse do they have?
@Damian Justice it's not a godly tough question that you can give the excuse of thinking logically under pressure. If someone got 1+1wrong it's cuz they were under pressure?
0 likes
Eduard Khil2022-01-02 07:31:57 (edited 2022-01-02 07:35:25 )
@Bob Brown True! I guess they're OK with making minimum wage while working their asses off 😅 And even then, logical thinking is still useful in other things apart from work!
@Michele Rich You clearly said adults don't use square nos. irl so they fucking forgot square numbers. So by your logic almost no one should remember the order of letters in the alphabets right? Or heck the order of digits. You can't even provide valid points.
@Handsome Stranger Hey you don't need to tell your age. Any humans with a functioning mind(,yeah not u) can figure out that you are a mid twenties neet leeching off ur parents.
@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago I didn't read the question right since I didn't realise they wanted the sum. I literatly woke up rn so I was gonna get it wrong
@Handsome Stranger Legend says you're still laughing to this day. "Cry more and cry about it" is the only word you know. Sad sad 🥲 Crying for you now my guy. I can buy you a dictionary if you want 🤧 But I enjoyed your laugh my guy. Wish I could hear more of your laugh... I'll make your word a quote in memory of you 😭🤧 "Go and cry about it. Cry more 😂" - Handsome Stranger 😭🤧
@Cup_of_H2O that doesn't 'follow my logic'. it's not like everything a person learns as a kid has the same likelihood of being forgotten as an adult, you moron. i never said that. give it up.
@Michele Rich You literally fucking said they forgot about square numbers cuz it's not used irl often. Stick to your fucking word. It's not super complicated formula that it's natural to not remember. It's goddam square numbers.
@Cup_of_H2O and that doesn't fucking mean that everything a person learns in their life will have the same chance of being forgotten. I AM sticking to my fucking words, you gaslighting fuck
@Kenny Ryan with that attitude squid game must be easy for you, and the people who failed the dalonga are stupid idiots. Why don’t they just not shake their hands?
And here’s a question, Calculate the mass of 4mol of Sodium Chloride. It should be easy for you to answer that in 30secs to 1 min.
Another one to do in a minuite, locate the glabella.
stress = stupidity , no matter how simple it it there are studies in this so just give him a break.
And the question can be misinterpreted like wait are we talking about integers because if now all of the choices are the answers.
Maths isn’t the only thing that makes someone intelligent, if you were some banker of course you need to be perfect at maths, it’s stupid to be a banker and not be good at maths. However you forgot other people have other jobs and are better than you in many more aspects. Since maths literally is your job and life, I’m not surprised this is the only time you’ll shine in the comments by being an arrogant showoff. Maybe have a little empathy, or maybe you can’t since you lack wisdom.
For a supposed millionaire, you seem to be dwelling nicely with us plebs in the comments.
@Cup_of_H2O > "What? Square numbers weren't in the question?"
Nice strawman, but nowhere in my arguments did I even assert that square numbers were not present in the question. You misunderstood me. I was making an argument about the incoherence of the question because of how dubious the question was with instructing what to do with utilizing the square numbers. We all know what a square number is, sure, except the question asked "Which of these square numbers" - then proceeds to give only natural/whole numbers which ultimately convoluted the objective of the question. You have to be specific with what you want the test taker to do with whatever material that is included in the question, otherwise, it's no wonder that the contestant or arguably even the audience will be convoluted with what the question is specifically asking.
@Cup_of_H2O > "How many brain cells doesn one need to figure out those were"
Attacking another strawman? Nowhere did I say that it is difficult to understand what square numbers are. I was making an argument based on the fact that because none of the multiple-choice answers were square numbers, which is what the question said they were, perplexed what exactly should have been looking for. Again, if you want your contestant to specifically utilize a mathematical concept in a certain way, then wording "which of these square numbers" when you're giving whole/natural numbers is NOT a good idea. Honestly, you misunderstanding what my argumentative basis is being built upon, when it isn't that hard to understand is even more pathetic showing than the contestant getting the wrong answer in the video.
Big Boy2022-01-02 22:15:14 (edited 2022-01-02 22:24:10 )
@Kenny Ryan you talk too much trash for someone that lives in a 700k apartment in the middle of NY you work so hard for nothing when other states have a qtr of the living prices and just as good of jobs enjoy being miserable forever to pay your bills
1 like
Big Boy2022-01-02 22:17:51 (edited 2022-01-02 22:25:21 )
@Kenny Ryan you come off as the most childish one here your ego is bigger than your mouth you don't get a new woman every week you liar and if you did it further explains what kind of person you are and you are a sucker if you live in a 700k apartment in the nastiest loudest city in the US nice financial mistake in my state you can buy a mansion for around that price with some nice land not some homeless crackhead peeing on my doorstep
@Damian Justice You clearly said there were no square numbers. "I was making an arguement based on the fcat that none of the multiple- choice answers were square numbers"
@Damian Justice Your arguement is just based upon the fact that the question is wrong which it isn't. It's clearly written square numbers and gave square numbers. Idk what your dumb brain is thinking when writing that.
@Handsome Stranger Oh no I'm so interested in you. You keep me awake at night....idk about that but I sure love talking to bs people cuz that just gives me a feeling I'm not dumb.
@Kenny Ryan keep on going dude ignore the handsome stranger prolly his mom and dad cut his balls and kicked his dumb ass out of the house so he is using his anger on the internet when irl hes just a castrated homeless kiddo in the garbage can 😂
Even if this is the case, most people are taught what exactly square numbers are as well as what whole and natural numbers are (whole and natural numbers are mathematically related btw). Based on how most people, including myself, are taught what these kinds of numbers are, it is not so hard to see how many are conditioned to remember square numbers separate from whole numbers. Because of this, it is understandable now what really obfuscated the question. It is absurd to presuppose that people are going to see a whole numbers and say “oh that’s a square number” - like no... your brain is going to naturally think differently to try to figure out wtf is going on with the question.
I see your comments are getting much shorter based on you lackadaisically responding to a small fraction of what I was arguing. Makes sense considering how much you’re repeating yourself without even acknowledging any of my supporting reasoning in an attempt to shield your ego. Can’t say that I relate, tho. 😂
@Damian Justice dam whole numbers and natural numbers are related didn't know that. Also when the question clearly mentions square numbers it isn't suprising to think "oh yea 16,25,36 and 49 are square numbers". What the hell are you even trying to say at this point is so unclear that even a blind person can see more clearly. Point out what exactly is wrong with the question. It said square numbers and gave square numbers. 5² isn't a square number. It's something that has ti be solved to get a square number.
@Damian Justice I'm repeating the same thing multiple times because what you are pointing out is the same thing. The fact that the question said square numbers and aren't square numbers. What are you even trying to say? Your dumb Barun apparently thinks mentioning square number and giving a square number is very different. And your brain is trying to figure out? How many seconds does it take to realize 16 is a square number?
@Damian Justice I'm giving shorter replies cuz all your arguements are the same. "Question complicated cuz said square number but gave whole numbers". Doesn't even make a bit of sense. 16 is a square number. That's a fact. You can't go "oh 16 is a whole number so people can't think it's a square number even though square number is clearly mentioned in the q".
@Handsome Stranger No I'm just interested in what bullshit people think. I am me. The one you are having trouble roasting unlike the poeple who actually showed reason.
@Cup_of_H2O having trouble roasting? 💀 I don’t think you realize how uninterested I am in any of you. You’re not the only one trying to get my attention 😂 just by even replying to me I’ve already beaten you. You literally read all my comments above. I’m in your head 😁 welcome to the club kiddo
@Handsome Stranger Lol you're uninterested? Then why u writing those million replies? Hypocritic if u ask me. Oh no you sure haven't beaten me,you are just trying your damn hardest to think that u did. Your attention? Hey hey I don't ever remember saying reply ti me so you're prolly just doing your best to protect yourself lel. All ur comments? Don't confuse myself with you,I am not a neet and have stuff to do. Welcome to which club? On let me guess,your dumbass club. Sorry not interested
@Cup_of_H2O not trying hard at all with you or anyone here. It’s a bunch of virgins. I’m not the only person you’ve been replying to in these comments. You’re down bad for attention. & ya you’re in the club of losers who I’ve sent to the shadow dimension 😂 hold this L middle aged virgin
@Prathamesh Jha Nope. I left home to study law in college 18 years ago and now own my own place. I’m not angry at all. I’m just shocked at the stupidity of the contestant and the audience on an extremely basic elementary school math question
@Handsome Stranger 😂 Lol. Oh dear. You come across as very bitter and angry in your comments. Were you bullied at school because you can’t do math? I guess that’s why you empathise so much with this imbecile contestant.
You’ll never beat me by the way. I make more in one month than you earn in a whole year 😎 And all it takes is a little knowledge of math 😁
P.S.: You can’t read. I never mentioned the word ‘emails’ as you suggested. If you were able to read you would have seen the word used was ‘entails’. So now we can add illiteracy to your innumeracy 🤣
@Cup_of_H2O I wouldn’t waste energy on him. Anyone who needs to call themselves “handsome stranger” on an online forum has a lot of identity issues. I think he struggled with math in school, and that’s why he’s so protective of the dumbass in the video.
@Kenny Ryan and you come across as old and lonely. I already beat you by you even replying to me. I’m over 10 years younger than you and actually have a HOUSE. Not a 1 man apartment because no woman was desperate enough to give you the time of day. Old man has no girl so he just spends his life on YouTube arguing about math 😭😭😭
@Handsome Stranger Process of elimination. You’re obviously in your twenties - likely 23-28, even though you have the temper and stubbornness of a pre-teen. Quite sad seeing you waste your time on this over such a long period of time tbh. You’re evidently unable to get this thread out of your head
@Sigurd H.S what do you mean obviously? you literally read that I have my masters and that I’m more than 10 years younger than 36 💀 and I only come back when someone @‘s me. Just how you’re doing right now because I struck a nerve with all you down bad weirdos
1 like
Big Boy2022-01-03 17:54:20 (edited 2022-01-03 17:57:27 )
@Kenny Ryan nah your just naive my grandpa was half illiterate and was a millionaire owned his own semi repair business + owned a 400 acre farm that he passed down to his son I understand math and square root just fine i learned it in basic algebra quit trying to act like a genius because you know the answer to a simple question the answer is literally 25 you happy now,? People like you are the dirt on the bottom of my shoe
@Handsome Stranger Yea ig living in their own parents house counts as their house. Stop being a neet and get a job. You are just an attention seeker who says that they have no interest in any of us yet proceeds to write millions of replies. Or maybe you just don't have a life lol.
@Big Boy That's not the point tho. Some people are literally defending other adults for not being able to answer this simple question. That's the main issue.
@Cup_of_H2O you literally ready my past replies that aren’t even to you and reply to them 😂 I have a job, I have a house, I have a car, I have a gf, I have a masters. I live rent free in your head. Talk to me once you get some pussy and some money 😂😂
For all of you trying to rationalize why the contestant could not get the correct answer, I learned how to do this in math over 47 years ago and can still remember how to do this in my head…with no smartphones, applewatches, etc.
@Handsome Stranger how was the question "unclear"? I think the problem here is that the american public in general isn't just terrible at math, but also has one of the lowest reading comprehension levels in all of the developed world.
Sawm tluanga the problem here isn't just the lack of basic math skills, it's also the complete unwillingness to accept that there IS a problem in the American education system that can't just be solved with "Well, [X] is useless because I'll never use it in REAL LIFE!!" People who don't have the ability to read well AREN'T likely to end up in any job that isn't low-skill/low pay.
@Wounded Angel Sure, but on average people with a college degree make more than those without or those who went to trade school, more than enough to make up for the cost of the degree.
@fmagalhaes1521 Exactly. Well said. There's no excuse for not getting this question right. If college students can't understand it then there's something seriously wrong with our education system.
@Faisal you're scoffing at American knowledge in an American app using American innovation which is the Internet with an American invented tech (smartphone/pc/laptop).
I got it right however I can see how the wording can confuse people. Though in saying that I got the answer right but with the wrong logic soooo🤷♀️🤷♀️
@Kenny Ryan if you get so pissed over auto correct then I don’t know what other little things you get pissed off, perfect example of a Grammar Nazi lol.
Also, hmmm I see also a lack of empathy, a lot of ego and showing off properties without proof or any merit, wouldn’t be surprised if you have a borderline narcissistic personality.
It’s almost funny, you’re basically. “I’m smarter than you you’re stupid” and that’s literally your only argument, only this time it’s just copy pasting synonyms from thesaurus to keep up your “intellectual” act.
For a bank executive it’s funny someone that important with little spare time would even bother commenting yet see this video and then comment on how superior they are and also seem to forget that this competitor is a human being.
@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago Some people can't read that's all. It's not about interpretation at all. The question has a single meaning for anyone who can properly read english
@Handsome Stranger At some point when you grow older you will realize that you were just a big mouth loser that has no knowledge whatsoever. For your personal growth I wish you for it to happen soon
@ZipMap I’m gonna sleep real good knowing a made another bum cry on the internet cause they’re broke 😂 get a job, move out your parents house, then come back. Loser 😭😂
@Handsome Strangersome people can be so free to reply all day 😂😂pretty sure u suck irl and try to be the cool kid on the net here you go take your L back
@Handsome Stranger Lol I just love how people can lie as much as they want in the internet. You would have written a million replies if u had a life. You are just a shut in neet in your twenties. Go get a job
@Handsome Stranger I'm also realizing the people who use emojis are the biggest losers. Go ahead feel free to cry now. Lel imagine thinking copying burn quotes from Google makes u cool.
@Handsome Stranger Lol Hurting me? Wheeeezee. I'm literally having fun seeing you write the same shit cuz your uncreative ass can't come with anything new
Sawm tluanga i dont disagree that they are successful.But again,they are successful idiots.Even if they dont need maths in their work,this is 6th standard shit anyone who went to school should know this
@chuffsteruk here, it's simple. Sum is the answer u get when u add. So, Sum of 2 smaller square numbers are the Sum of 3 square=9 + 4 square= 16. Meaning 16+9. 25! None of the other options had smaller square numbers which added up correctly. Did that make sense?
@Magnus Wootton its true. It's very difficult to keep ur head in such situations. I couldn't do basic 2 digit number addition in front of my father because I was scared of getting it wrong. (Which I could do alone btw)
@Cup_of_H2O “if you could me” you can’t even type. You’re obviously mad cause you felt the need to mention me after reading my past replies to other people. I offended you 😂
@Handsome Stranger No, I didn't "literally read that". What, you think your thoughts are so interesting I'd read your 500 comments? No, thank you. What do you have a master's in? Quarreling? Anyhow, you're living proof intelligence and education don't go hand in hand. Enjoy spending your next 3 months going back to this thread thrice a day while you tell yourself you're in everybody's head lmao. I love deluded people.
9 + 16 = 25. We automatically know that 16 must’ve added up to 25, so all we’d have to do is subtract 16 from 25 if we felt like it, but the answer truly sticks out as 25 be4 that
People are so fucking rude in these replies, holy shit. I didn't know it either (I also thought it was 16 cause 8+8? idk i thought 8 were square numbers, whatever a square number is) and that's fine, where I live I never learnt them and even if I did, it's just not-very-useful math. And I don't fucking care of what you think, there is no shame in not knowing that
this comment is so cringe lol, of course it isn't difficult because you probably know that 16 and 9 are squares or used the pythagorean theorem from high school. seriously, people need to stop expecting others to know what square root is and see them as dumb for it lol, this question is even asked wrongly from a mathematical viewpoint, there are complex and negative answers and this question as a whole is both difficult and not depending on if you know these kinds of problems.
@Handsome Stranger I love seeing your expression at 02:20 in this video. You are literally so stupid you don’t even understand the host’s explanation of the answer 😂😂😂
@Neven how this question is written in a confusing way ☠️ it's very simple English - which square is also the "sum" of smaller squares... Idk why people even reading it as product when it clearly says Sum
It is also primary level in the US. I'll bet if you polled adults 30-60 years old in the UK with this question the majority would fail also. Most people don't care about or use math at all beyond balancing their statement. They use a calculator, phone or PC to do math.
At the first moment 16 really seemed the most likely answer, but as soon as the question is read properly and some math is switched on, it was very easy to get to 25.
@Jane Miller Actually, I don't know. At the first moment intuitively it just seemed that 16 is a very suitable number to contain small square numbers (2x2, 3x3, combined with something, maybe 4x4 plus square of 0 counts). But it's still hard to explain, how so many people in the audience managed to give a wrong answer after so much time for thinking.
25 is a square number (5^5) and is the sum of 9 (3^3) and 16 (4^4), which are respectively smaller numbers. This took me a minute. I don't know how much time you have on a live show to figure out. It actually took me a few times to reread the question. It wasn't super hard but also isn't a straight forward math question; for most people with basic math skills, it takes trial and error to go through all the possibilities.
I feel like the audience just had a facepalm moment when the guy couldn't answer such a simple question. They came together, pulled one on him and clapped their hearts out.
Nope. Just average people. Most of them probably forgot what square number is. If you do not use something your brain removes it and replaces it with valuable information, like the measures of Kim Kardashian.
The WovenMantis2021-02-14 05:02:27 (edited 2021-02-14 05:03:00 )
@PureLove Having lived in many different places overseas, the average person is pretty dumb internationally, but the way math is taught in America is fundamentally poor, and they don’t realize it until they start struggling with more complex algebra in collegiate-level mathematics.
@steamroller82 Your last sentence is what's wrong and the fact that it's frustrating you only means that you haven't notice the difference with kids those days. They need more pragmatism and concrete. They don't listen to grown-up blindly as they use to do. For example, if a young kids have some trouble to understand 3 + 1, tell him you have 3 candies, how many would you have if I give you 1 more ? The answer would be easier for him to find. This is available with all level of maths, if you know why, it helps understanding the how. Especially with equations which are as bored to learn than they are usefull in the life. It's up to you teachers to make your lessons interresting.
That said, I think there is a will to low down the level of knowledge given in schools because it's easier to rule on ignorants swallowing everything and asking for it than to rule on people using their brain to think by themselves. And it's not only in America but all over the western world.
@Basi I agree with you, they don't care because they don't have to. I don't know about your country but in France, no matter if they understand/know/learn, they would be promoted anyway so why would they care ? And we get 11yo teenagers unable to read what they wrote themselves.
@Gilles Grindel im from germany and i didnt care from class 6 through 10 either bc i would get promoted without doing anything but now in class 11 (i graduate in class 12) im working like normal again bc the work im doing now matters for my degree
@steamroller82 It's about the way it is tought psychologically, not just giving the material, but to actually make it go through their head in a way that would spike interest in them. That's what's wrong.. Parents don't necessarily have the time to make their kids interested in math.
@steamroller82 strongly disagree. Most of what I saw in my K-12 math seemed to be a terrible way to learn it. The focus was always on memorizing formulas or methods to do something; rarely were we taught, in detail, why the formulas and methods worked.
When you tell someone to memorize a method/formula and keep it completely abstract, they are not learning. They are preparing for a test. They may do perfectly well on that test, but they do not understand the material and they have not learned anything useful.
Even though I went to good schools, math was still usually taught poorly. This is a serious problem with our education.
@steamroller82 Kids dont want to learn maths cuz its boring and/or annoying to them. I never had that problem. But the reason we need them to learn is cuz the society needs the best minds for maths, cuz the future lies on scientists and only the best of them will create the future. Ofc math relates to like half of all jobs so its for your own good from a smaller perspective and it powers the passion of some. If youre not one of those passionative people or you dont plan to go to a math based jobs, (from societys perspective) we, our kids and technically you too cuz ur a part of society need you to learn math for the future. And we want the best future. Ive seen so many brilliant minds just lose interest in school. Im embarassad to say they were probaply smarter than me but because they didnt care about grades they are going to become plumbers and electricians and im going to be the scientist. We are all just worker ants for the society, always have been. If you dont believe me, then think about where the money is going, who is getting something from ur work. This is not a religion its just one of the ways to comprehend society. Future innovations are the best and only way to get out of this hamster wheel of working, breeding and dying. Math is a giant part of those innovations, mostly about machines to do everything for us and calculations to keep our planet living for the existance of human kind. You can tell them this and the fact that it doesnt matter when they accept this, now or when they are 90, this is just how it is. Does this sound depressing? Ofc it does but theres much much more to that including happiness but i dont have enough time to explain the whole existance of life in every little detail, not even if i talked about it 24/7 365 till i die i wouldnt.
@Call me Rel Lived in Jakarta for two years actually. Granted, I went to an international school, and Jakarta is certainly not the poorest place in Indonesia, but there was still plenty.
Crazy how there was so much poverty directly adjacent to huge skyscrapers and malls.
@steamroller82 imo algebra is only needed in STEM jobs and probably a few other jobs I don't consider. Like, a security guard don't need complex maths.
@Glegle Everyone will need basic math at some point in his life, everyone, there is no exception. Even without knowing math, it is used for everything and so the best for everyone is to learn it.
It's not about liking it at all. It's about having the control of our life, that's completely different.
You need 2 apples ? You need to know if you have enough money to buy them and for that, you need to count your money you need to be able to read numbers.
Your comment is one of the top 50 clueless comment I read. What next ? Lots of people don't need to read ? School is useless ? What's your true point ? Because I suppose you don't put on the table such a so woke idea for nothing ? What's the schedule behing that, I'm curious.
@steamroller82 I've used algebra and geometry in real life, but there was a thing we did in the last year that I couldn't understand, never used again, but was capable of doing. I got grade A but still don't know what the heck it was we did or why.
@steamroller82 I mean we don't really. how many of us are gonna be on a game show? and really other than this show, game shows don't even ask questions like this
@Logan You have to do major abstractions to actually understand many mathematical formulas in the first place. Much more abstract than the formulas themselves, but abstractions can simplify and uncover hidden relations. Afterall mathematical theories are just abstractions of something which started out to be a specific problem like measuring the area below a curve led to approximating such areas with rectangles which if chosen arbitrarily small measure the area arbitrarily precise. Generalizing this notion of riemann integral to multiple dimensions will uncover that many things which didn't matter in 1dim (but are also happening in 1 dimension just unnoticed) are crucially important such as the path you take to count those rectangles. Generalizing further and further will make you understand the simple case you started from better and better while you expand the tools you have developed to work on much larger classes of problems. That's kind of the history of mathematics.
I agree that schools relying way too much on teaching facts is a problem but your picture of mathematics isn't accurate. Mathematics is all about abstraction. Without abstraction one can't possibly understand mathematics.
@Isomer Soma ? You just agreed with me and then said that my picture of mathematics was inaccurate. My entire point was that K-12 schools do not encourage or teach any abstraction.
I recognize that I'm usually unable to answer most of the questions asked in this game show... I'm not even able to answer the $100 or $200 questions... Having said this, this specific question was pretty simple... I'm surprised it was worth $16,000! Sometimes they ask questions that are much more difficult but are only worth $500 or $1,000.
I initially thought that both smaller square numbers must be the same. I was like, "wth, where's the correct answer??". Then I realised they don't have to be the same number lol
Having 4 results tripped him up. He could not focus on finding the sum squares for 25 so he rushed it probs due to pressure. I cant blame, public school fails to instill the pain of failure you will experience in life if you dont take math seriously.
@Dkoy Koala yeah that's why I'm good at math, I literally got a near perfect score on my math end of year exams only off by 3 points one time, I make jokes to other people about the fact that I might be able to multiply faster than they can type something out on a calculator, sometimes I win sometimes the calculator wins, god on reread this sounds like me flexing but I swear it's not I just felt it important to talk about personal experience, I also find math problems in things that don't have math in them intentionally but can be created from them for fun when bored, math is in my case a lot more useful but that's just cause of the fact that I've always liked math.
The applause started with just one person, and a second later a few more people, then everybody. Either they turned on the applause sign or the others began applauding just out of force of habit of applauding when others applaud.
@Dkoy Koala "public school fails to instill the pain of failure you will experience in life if you dont take math seriously." ah yes, the failure of not winning a gameshow, that thing all of us totally go through. and it's obviously public school's fault for not scaring us enough about this "fact", not that the way schools in general but especially public schools teach math that's the problem. education understander koala.
Man, I was sweating just to imagine being there... Suddenly, I started doubting all the timetables I knew and wanted to cross-check every sum. These games are not only about knowledge... You need to kill every question in cold blood.
By just looking at the thumbnail and seeing only the first two options, I did some calculating in my head and guessed the correct answer which was 25. But idk if I would’ve been able to under the pressure that he was feeling.
I’m not even gonna lie, I’m kind of ashamed of my school, I’m in grade 8 and on grade level math and we are just now learning Pythagoras theorem. I get my homework done as soon as I get it and I bet half the kids in my class would ponder this question for days.
@Vikram Tete It would be correct, but since it asked for 2 smaller squares, you can’t just add 16 to 0. If that were the case you could make a case that every answer would be correct.
@Koichi Hirose How every answer would be correct? Look...16= 4^2+0^2, 25= 4^2+3^2, 36= 6^2+0^2, 49=7^2+0^2....Hence, here we can say that 4^2 and 0 are the smallest pair of square numbers than the rest three pairs.
@Vikram Tete You're logic is 100% correct, but I think you were misunderstanding my last point. I was saying that if we applied your logic then every answer on the board would be correct (which you proved) and this wouldn't be a question.
@Vikram Tete the parts where you misunderstood it are, 1) Square number is like the name for the answer/title (product/sum...) so saying 4^2 isn't the square number itself but like the equation for it. 2) "smaller square..." 16 or 4^2 isn't smaller than 16, they are equal.
@TheSpecialPumpkin NO it says which two smaller SQUARE numbers so 2x4 and 0x4 are not SQUARE numbers! It’s 3x3 add 4x4 to make 25! Really not difficult!
@Vikram Tete it can’t be that Bc the question wasn’t asking you to square it it was asking numbers that can be squared when adding 4^2 is wrong Bc we didn’t square the 9 and the 16 basically it was asking which number squared is the sum of two perfect squares with out squaring just adding also I think Yk that since I’m now realizing this was 10 months ago my bad😂
@Vikram Tete The problem stated "two smaller numbers", so your logic doesn't apply to the question since the same numbers are equal, not greater nor less than the other...
@JasonStarRising man tries to boast that he knows what square numbers are but doesnt know something as simple as that not all people have the same privileges and that not all schools teach the same things, how funny lol
@Direct_Kard If you believe me questioning how someone could go through Texas’s entire middle school education system and still not know what square numbers are is boasting then you’re probably in a similar position, because me claiming I learnt square numbers as a 5th grader is no flex as it’s generally standard within the American education system.
@Shaik Feroze I'm generalizing here.. Everyone uses a calculator so nobody knows how to do math functions. I never liked math but I always got straight A's all through elementary and high school. I'm a retired service executive who had managed several mid level managers over my career, many of them my age or older who couldn't perform basic addition/subtraction without using a calculator. I'm talking about fellow boomers. Frustrating and too set in their ways and unwilling to want to even learn quick short cuts. People are too too lazy.
@steamroller82 Your explanation and conclusion was exactly the result of the Pythagoran theorem, which is the same thing Abishek said. So you both obtained the correct answer simply using different methods. PS: I pictured the answer the way Abishek explained because that's how it was so ingrained in our minds from school.
The audience was thinking the following: from these perfect squares, which number has two equal integers that also are equal to it. Which is A ( 8+8) and C (18+18). But they short circuit to A because B (25/2 = 12.5).
@Shaik Feroze I don't wanna hear it. We've discovered electricity. Invented the first plane. Made the first mass produced car. Made the first TV. Without us yall might still be way behind
His problem wasn't with math. The thing that kicked his ass (and the audience's) is that they can't handle a simple logical process even tho all of the information they need is right in front of them.
@MSU Spartans all the background you'd need to solve it is taught in elementary school, if you can't figure it out from there you're a straight up moron
The question is worded so poorly. Also you don't learn this in elementary. Moron trying to insult people for their knowledge, yet they can't even get the grade level right
@Vikram Tete Read the question properly, lol. "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
Again, the important part..."SUM OF TWO SMALLER SQUARE NUMBERS"
16= 4^2+0^2 is an invalid answer. Thats 16 = 16+0, which is NOT what the question is asking. 16 is not less than 16. 16 is equal to 16. So, you aren't summing 2 smaller square numbers to make a bigger square number. One of the squares you are summing is not smaller, therefore, the answer is wrong if you say 16, 36 or 49. 25 is the only correct answer.
I chose the same option the guy chose, I didn’t know he was going to choose it until 55% of the audience chose option A. Never trust audience in math. Only the math expert one in the audience
What’s even worse than him not being able to get it is that only 30% on the audience picked the right answer, the majority picking another, incorrect option
Bru, im 15 and the question flew completely over my head thinking it was a complicated math problem. The second when I asked my dad for help when he was drinking a beer, he instantly told me the answer. I'm like dam it, need more sleep.
notcyndi its because most people mistook 'product' for 'sum'. The question setter was obviously aware of this sort of thing so she/he put in 16 as an answer to help drive the mistake
RingoIta So? Where do you get the impression that we don't learn it in high school too? That doesn't change the fact that a) Memories fade (especially for the people in the audience, who are a wide range of ages), b) Being taught something in school doesn't mean you were ever good at it, c) Schools, at least North American ones, weren't teaching the same level of math 20 or more years ago that they are now (might not be an excuse for the contestant, but is probably one for a lot of audience members), and d) Humans are naturally bad at math. Don't make this an "Americans are idiots" moment, because it isn't. If you must be so obnoxiously nationalist about it, at least blame American schools.
+C3nturyFox I knew a kid who got in trouble constantly because he actively refused to stop using l33tsp33k in English class. I taught that kid. I almost failed him but the school made me "help him along" and I quit. Fuck you.
Terumi Yūki And people wonder why languages are being used so poorly. Your supervisors need to be sacked for forcing you to give a child a pass, when the child did not show competence in the subject being studied.
75IFFY Nowadays schools care much more about how they look to the state as opposed to how educated their students end up. There's another side to it though, if a school has low test scores they won't get funded as much. Tell me how that makes sense.
Sorry, I cant find any way to say that it makes sense. Its like the state wants to actively reduce the populations level of education!!
Linking funding to results in any government run/state responsible entity is just wrong. Whether its police, education or immigration/customs, et al. The only people that get benefits are those that dont need it, and the ones that are vulnerable and need help get the short straw at the least, or blatantly preyed upon at worst.
I hope that you find a good school that appreciates you. :)
+zolikoff I was cracking so hard when I said to myself "no dont listen to the audience!, Its 25 dammit." Then he listen to the audience LOL!!.
This question is very easy to answer if you are trained as well as I am to interpret what may be a tricky math question to a really simple question. The square of these numbers is those 4 numbers they give you.
The sum of two square numbers, could be any unrelated numbers squared that add to 25. The question should really say two square whole numbers or something, but I do not want to be an ass.
Anyways it amazes me that most audience voted for A.
+Ghost I'm guessing most of the audience voted for A because they don't know the difference between a sum and a product. 4*4=16, and 2*2=4, but 4*4 is a product, not a sum, which is what the question asked for.
+Terumi Yūki That response to Fox was unnecessary and Fox makes a very good point.
It IS mostly down to the bad teachers, but sometimes it's not, sometimes it is down to the structure in set place for the teachers. The main problem is that the bad teachers should not even be allowed to teach in the first place.
Education and schooling needs a complete overhaul in my opinion. Up teachers wages but also up the requirements to enter teaching. As a government you are saying how much you value teaching by the standard of teachers you allow and the wage you pay them.
At the moment, crap teachers are teaching and people who would be very good in teaching are turned off by the lower wages in comparison to other careers they can enter with they high qualifications. The result is you just get left with trash people who didn't do so well in their own education, going in to teach. And so the cycle continues.
+zolikoff Right ask the audience about math.... When for normal people, almost 80% of your friend would say they hate math. If you think about it carefully, it is suicidal.
The MC is very kind to actually hint "they are messing you up! use other life line!!!"
And the crowd cheering at the end. It is like applauding and saying. "LMAO you believe us?!?"
My 13 year old son just pointed out that 0 squared + 4 squared is 16. So, A is acceptable it seems. Unless you don't think 0 is a number. But everyone I know would say 0 is a number.
DarkNSinth That's not true. The question specifically says "...the sum of two smaller square numbers"; therefore, the number itself and 0 may not be used.
St.Clair Bij The question requested "the sum of two smaller square numbers", and "last time I checked", 5 squared is not smaller than 5 squared. Again, 0 and 5 may not be used to achive the correct answer.
most people nowadays wouldn't know how to answer this, this quickly cuz we rely too much on our calculators even tho we study like over 12 hours math per week in our university i can't even remember the last time i actually manually calculated something like the product of numbers with 2 degits
75IFFY sir, or madamn, product is mutliplication. I came across this video one day and I see that a lot of people are spreading incorrect information. The smaller square numbers than 16 are: 1, 4, 9, which of these two numbers make a product of 16? 4, and 4 again. The way the question is formulated implies that the two numbers are different. So the truth is, the audience does not have the mathematical thinking capacity.
Nice im indian, i knew the answer,btw they be like: they took errr jerbs....boi could have considered the fact that those two squared number must have to be smaller than 25, and what are rhose, those are 4,9,16 now add and see if it meets your requirements
@DarkNSinth this is an oversight in the wording of the question. Usually in mathematics "square numbers" and "perfect squares" are defined over the natural numbers, which excludes 0.
@notcyndi I immediately thought of square root numbers. square numbers is just a weird word for me, sum of squares make more sense but the fact that it said square numbers made me initially think 16 because of 4.
Since the sum is small (Max 49) it doesn't take long if you start at one, squaring each successive number in your head. Once you get to four you should have the answer already.
Doing it under the pressure of a TV show is a different beast entirely.
This is actually a hard question given that there are two unknown variables. He has to do the guess and check method in his head in a high pressure environment. Much easier to do this when you are at home with external help like pencil and paper.
That's the guy who is paid to jump up and get the auidence to clap..the audience is already instructed to clap enthusiastically whenever the 'clap guy' does this. I should know, my job was to punch anyone who didn't clap.
At first glance it seems simple, but there could be a bunch of different combinations of square numbers that you'd have to work out. A paper and pen could help.
I’m stoned right now so I thought I would test myself. I figured it out just before it went green. my thought process was chaotic (Experiment conclusion - don’t do drugs if you need to do math)
Y’know, it really makes me wonder if some of these people deliberately answered wrong out of spite...
“Look at this guy! Who does he think he is? Using a lifeline on a math question. Pffffft. I should be the one down there. I hope the wrong answer I give helps him lose like he rightfully should!”
@Jollys Heldone The question said nothing about 25. It said what square number is the sum of two other square numbers. The audience misunderstood that as what square number has its square root also being a square number (and the sum of 2 and 2 is 4, so that also makes it easy to see confusion).
@Mukul Sharma Yeah, I'm thinking "What have I got" I've got 4, 9, 16, oh hang on, 9+16 works? there can't be more than one correct answer, surely, OK question master, 25 final answer, this isn't rocket surgery or brain science lol.
Soumit Sen / Wow, read the question. It has one answer. It said the sum of TWO SMALLER square numbers. 4^2 is not smaller than 4^2. Whereas 3^2+4^2 are both smaller than 5^2
Aston Smith2020-12-04 23:00:12 (edited 2020-12-04 23:00:38 )
@Vikram Tete When you raise zero to any power, you'll get zero. Zero isn't a square number. Although, since zero is an identity element of addition, it is valid but not in the context of the question being asked.
@homeboi808 how the hell did you assume the audience misinterpreted a simple to understand question as a more confusing question that is also completely different from the original question.
@BiggieBigs Actually, upon further assessment you speak the truth. This is because you are considering the set of Integers and not the set of Natural numbers (excluding zero). 0 is perfectly reasonable since it is a solution to the square function curve (excluding any constants) and gives a simple output with no decimals when a square root is applied. However, do you think this game show made those underlying assumptions?
I know this comment is a troll, and it's quite funny, but 5^ + (3i)^2 = 16 isn't a solution to this particular question because it specifies smaller squares, and with imaginary numbers, you cannot compare them the same way you can with real numbers. In other words, the statements 3i > 5 or 3i < 5 have no meaning because the greater than and less than signs only apply when comparing two real numbers.
@Prateek Bhaisora if you would like.... I can most definitely compare real numbers to complex numbers using lexicographical ordering since ever real number can be written as #+i(0). However you can not not compare complex numbers because there is not total ordering on the complex numbers.
Okay so, the audience most likely thought it was 16 because 4^2 is 16 and it is also the SUM of to other squares, they most likely thought that 8 + 8 is 16 and 8 is the square root of 64 so that's, what the audience thought
@Azorath142 No Worries most people that have posted on this have been either intoxicated, retarded, or deluded. At least you have the ability and sense to recognise your errors, many don't.
@homeboi808 What but "what number has a square root that is also a square number" is a completely different question. Where would the word "sum" come in at all then?
@homeboi808 Huh. I could see that for a few, but fully 50% of people though? More people than any other group, all independently interpreted the same, completely different question, which is immediately wrong in at least two different ways? I'm finding that hard to believe, but will defer to your expertise. That's pretty amazing if that's true.
Surprising, that the audience knew that 5^2 plus (3i)^2 works but didn't know the definition of square and the absence of the smaller/larger property in C.
Obviously the correct answer should have been d) 49 as both 4 and 9 are smaller squares.
You are correct.... Ouestion should be -: Which of these square numbers also happens to be sum of 2 smaller square number ( numbers can be imaginary or real number )
@Josh Greenberg An easier way to rule out this possibility is noting that the question says "square numbers", which are by definition integers. Therefore, we aren't talking about imaginary numbers.
@jp fay why would they? The relationship smaller doesn't exist between imaginary and real numbers. Also. 5^2 is not smaller then 4^2 which is in violation of the question.
@Ronit Aich they did say the number less than the square number For example, let's take this question 5²=25 we'll have to take 2 numbers less than 5 i.e for this it's 3²(=9)+4²(=16)
@homeboi808 yeah but the question like clearly says "sum" of smaller square numbers. It's okay if they're bad at math, can't be bad at both math and English.
@Deep Throught Ha, you don’t know my students (and my area if fairly good, I can just imagine inner city public schools).
1 like
English Life2021-11-15 20:29:19 (edited 2021-11-15 20:30:01 )
@Mercedes I know that is what I am saying. The fact that he is comparing complex numbers with real numbers is just doesn't make any sense. Imagine comparing length and weight at the same time by saying George length is greater than his weight. That is what this person did.
Can't believe so much debate over what the audience did wrong. All they did was misread the word "sum" as "product" in the original question. Everything else in the question, they read correctly, just that one word. They may have read "sum" but their brains processed it to "product" - so did mine at first, gravitating me to 16, but then gave it a few more seconds thought and realized my error.
Combination of Integer and Imaginary numbers are not allowed because she says "SMALLER", There is not "Bigger than" or "Smaller than" relations among complex numbers.
@Mercedes They misread "sum" as "product" or "square" - 1) Can and do you even see how misreading this single word leads to the answer 16? Read the question, substitute that word, and process. You see you get 16. If you do not see this, there is no point to discussing further. If so, proceed to point 2. 2) Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the most likely. As soon as the audience reads squares, they start thinking squares/multipliers. Addition never enters their mind despite reading "sum" - starts thinking in terms of squares and products, hence the misreading in their heads - at no time did any addition computation enter their minds. The argument is over. The task is not refuting what I say, but to contemplate how and why such a word "sum" was miscronstrued. My explanation is the most plausible and correct and should indeed be obvious now that I've enlightened you.
@sirmolio The simplest explanation is that the audience is dumb. I think you are being a bit generous by claiming that they all collectively misconstrued “sum”.
@Mercedes More like laziest explanation, not simplest. Dumb audience would mean random guessing and answers of equal distribution with no bias towards any one answer.
@Josh Greenberg I was thinking this as well, but notice that we have to compare the squares, not the bases (that is, we compare (3i)^2=-9 with 4^2=16, not 3i with 4. However, the example fails anyways because 25 is not smaller than 16.
Can you really define 3i (or any multiple of i) as "smaller" than 16? It's not even on the same number graph, so it's relative position to 16 is undefined. And, of course 5^2 is bigger than 16.
The word "smaller" is how they escaped scrutiny, because there are loads of definitions of two squares to add up to all four choices.
@BiggieBigs Of course 0 is a square number. It is the literal vertex for the y=x² parabola because if we take the derivative of y we get y' which is equal to 2x.
We then need to find when 2x=0 to get our co-ordinates. 2x=0 goes to x=0/2 goes to x=0.
0 is the only sol thus making it the input value for our y'.
The question was to use 2 smaller square numbers to add up to one of the 4 options. Obviously with 4² as the first option, 1²,2²,3² can't add up to 4² in any order. There's the special triangles that are commonly used in Pythagoras' Theorem which are 3²+4²=5², 5²+12²=13²
@Vikram Tete This actually strikes me, although I don’t believe that this could be a case because 16 = 4^2 + 0^2 but 16 is not greater than 4^2, and question asked for smaller square numbers
@a.a most of them guessed because they don't know obviously, 16 looks like an answer due to the fact that its square root is a square number and it satisfies the problem definition. most people know that 2^2 = 4 and might think 16 is indeed a likely answer, its more of a hunch rather than interpretation.
your wrong with this example tho In math, a square number is specifically defines as:Product of some integer with itself (src: wikipedia) 3i ain't an integer.Hence (3i)^2 is not a square number
She tried so hard to hint to him that he was wrong. Pointing out the AOL poll wasn't "as good", reminding him he has other lifelines. Then she rambles a bit, I guess because she realizes it's obvious. It was kind of her
I'll admit this question threw me off as well. I read it as "the sum of two of the same smaller square numbers" which would be impossible with any of the answers rather than two different smaller square numbers combined. Evidently threw both the audience and the AOL audience off as well.
It's a quirk of the bias of the mind, I'd argue. Square roots inevitably require the self-same number, but the question itself allows two that are not the same.
@Анатолий Бронштейн Of course it wouldn't work, that's the problem. Yet most of us assume that game shows don't make errors, and that it is instead our own dysfunction that is not seeing the proper answer rather than reading the question incorrectly entirely as a premise. These aren't unreasonable assumptions, frankly.
@VesperAegis News & Games they are unreasonable if we are talking about assumptions. You should never assume it is someone else who is wrong and not you. You start with an assumption that the task formulation is correct, and check it for inconsistencies. Only if all checks fail can you conclude that it is indeed incorrect.
Anyway, I don't see how this is relevant. The question was correctly worded, and the answer was correct as well.
Where does she point out that the AOL poll wasn’t “as good”? She just points out that they both agree that the number isn’t great, which is entirely different.
@Анатолий Бронштейн And yet, all of us do it - even you, whether you realize it or not. The mind is built from the ground up for biases based on emulation of widest and most redundant preset scenarios, and this even applies to our visual field. The brain corrects its simulation only when it sees an error in its preset, not before. The great thing about the logical mind is that we CAN independently confirm formulations and assumptions, but that doesn't mean bias does not exist and can be correctly every time. We do not live in that ideal world, hence my point about the question appealing to the mind's biases. Checking for inconsistencies to the point of redundancy when the grand majority of scenarios indicate that the question will be formulated correctly without an appeal to biases of the mind or trickery is most of the time absurdity. One can waste valuable time and mental resources checking independently, or proceed with some amount of reasonable interpretation and assumption in tow - skipping resource-intensive steps of independent verification for every idiosyncratic element can be quite helpful in most scenarios. Whether it is correctly worded or not is utterly irrelevant.
@VesperAegis News & Games and here's where you are wrong, because nobody's arguing for doubting every step of the way through your everyday life. In fact, your biases outside of the scope of any particular research are irrelevant to the research itself; on the other hand while doing research, certain procedures must be observed lest the research lost all its value. My point was that you absolutely must question yourself when you find yourself confused. If something doesn't make sense to you, take a step back and ask yourself what you are missing.
@Анатолий Бронштейн The issue, of course, is that questioning yourself does not preclude that the bias should be taken completely out of consideration, especially when it could influence how you ultimately arrive at an evidence-based conclusion and the steps required to get to that point. Indeed, if you find yourself confused, and especially if you are limited on time and scope in what you can do, you should be as efficient as possible while not necessarily abdicating your own independent conclusions. In this particular case, it makes reasonable sense to assume that the game show's designers did not intend to deceive, especially with a question towards the middling field no doubt more carefully crafted than others, and to work based off of the assumption that there may be an answer under that premise you have not delved into closely enough yet. Does that mean you shouldn't independently make conclusions? No. But we have the benefit of hindsight here and the fact that in this particular case, the assumption did not pay off - in other circumstances, it most definitely would have saved both time and effort. And very much to the contrary - biases outside the scope of research most certainly can lead you to valid conclusions as a proxy, even if they are purely deductive or inductive based on past experience in causal chains of events in other fields of inquiry.
@Анатолий Бронштейн Well, 8 isn't actually a square number, it is a cube number. That means it's not really a valid answer anyway. But I can definitely see how it would throw so many people off :D
@CZghost it's in the context, buddy. 8 was meant to be the answer under the alternative interpretation the guy I was talking to suggested, and 25 was meant to be the right answer. 8 = 2² + 2². Obviously, we have to loosen the requirement of 8 being a square itself, because there's no such n that both n = m² and n = p² + p² with whole n, m and p.
@VesperAegis News & Games I read it as who was the first president. but ot clearly doesn't fuckong say that so im stupid and should shut the fuck up. same goes for others
She even tried to hint, "Can you figure it out based on what you're seeing here" -- i.e. the second choice (25) is the first choice (16), plus nine. The hint to the answer was right there in front of him.
The guy in the hot seat gets a pass for this. When you're under that amount of stress, all cognitive processes go out the window. Seriously, I can barely think straight when I'm called on in a class, let alone in front of millions of people. Now the audience, on the other hand...
A lot of people are functionally innumerate. They just don't need math in their day-to-day lives. Last year I watched someone ask their smartphone what time it would be in 20 hours. I told them they could just subtract 4 from the current time, and they looked at me like I was an idiot. Or, I suggested, you could add 8 and swap the AM/PM. "That doesn't even make any sense," they said.
The next day, I saw a different coworker had done the same task without asking their phone. They had actually added 68 hours instead of 20. No idea how they got that figure.
@teapotmonkey Shows how immature you are. People like you don't claim anxiety to be true. I myself have social anxiety, and despite liking math, when under a lot of anxiety and stress, my cognitive functions start to decrease and hence the answer is not correct. I'm a introvert and social anxiety affects me a lot.
@Eezlum Mockelchev Yeah, peoples that make 180 grand a year. It takes most peoples a lot longer than a month to make that much, mate.
I’ve probably got that much in my couch cushions, of course, but I’m not most peoples. I tip that much when I eat at a cheap restaurant, if the service is bad, but I’m unbelievably rich.
I do feel like you'd soon settle in to a slightly less uncomfortable state where you're capable of thought, but just second-guess all your immediate thoughts.
I'm gonna be real, this doesn't even seem like an easy question. Yeah, with a bit of time anyone can just find the answer, or simply have the common 3-4-5 right triangle already in mind, but I wouldn't really expect more than 75% of people to get this right in this scenario. Too much pressure and too little time.
Some people are just shit at math If you can't handle the anxiety then how about you PRACTICE beforehand(believe it or not, that actually works) 1.000.000$ should be worth it
I see some commenters not familiar with how anxiety works. That's okay, just please don't assume that you know how it must feel at the moment.
For me, it feels like all associative and pattern-matching functions (something very important for math questions!) just stop working. I wouldn't in a million years make a connection to 3-4-5. Thankfully, the math here is basic, and I would certainly remember what square numbers are and how addition works, so I would just start mindlessly iterating through calculations 49-4, 49-36, 49-16, etc. I think I would arrive at a correct answer eventually, it would just take me a minute or two.
@Arav Sri Agarwal It is absolutely not. This is more like a high school freshman math question. What kind of school did you go to where they were doing square roots in Second Grade?
@Blake McNamara this shit is easy lol. As long as you understand the definition of a squared number, which should be anyone above the age of 11 . Then you should be able to get this question right, even if it takes you a minute.
@Blake McNamara probably a school in a country outside of the United States. I'm sure it has changed in the last 20 or so years, but back in 1999, 7th graders in the US were still doing multiplication tables while Bulgarian 7th graders were learning algebra. So, depending on the school system, I can easily see this being 2nd grade stuff
@edeltwice One of my late uncles once called me at 4 am in Tokyo from New York. I jumped up out of bed, answered the phone, heard his voice, and shouted, "Did someone die?" He said that everything was fine. Why did I think someone had died, he wondered. I told him it was 4am. Why would he call at 4am unless someone had died? To which he replied, "Oh, we're sorry. We couldn't remember if Tokyo was around 12 or 24 hours ahead of NY." (Depending on whether it's DST in the USA, it's 13 or 14.) I had to remind him that if it were 24 hours, Tokyo and NY would have to be in the same time zone, like Boston and NY. He didn't really get it. I don't think he understood the time zone system and how to use it. He was trying to learn a list of facts: London is so and so many hours ahead. Bombay (what it was called then) is so and so many. Tokyo is so and so many. Individual facts, instead of patterns or systems. The whole reason that standard time zones were introduced is that no one could keep track of all the different times, as trains went from town to town, this one two minutes ahead of the previous one, the next one four minutes ahead of this one. Perhaps this allegiance to rote memorization (when most of what you memorize is forgotten) instead of the famous "learn how to think" part of education is the real problem.
On the other hand, here in Japan, I have given up asking students to debate the value of keeping standard time all year or switching to DST in the summer. Inevitably, I get students who insist, "You can't change time. It's part of nature."
I have also had relatives who were baffled as to the Celsius temperature system. How do you know if it is warm or cold when it's 20 degrees C.? I answered, "How do you know if it's warm or cold when it's 20 degrees F.?" "Well, it's really cold." "Yes, but how do you know that?" "Because 20 degrees is cold!" "Yes, but how did you find that out? You went outside when you were a little kid and it was 20 degrees and your mother made sure you were bundled up. "I don't want to put on my wool jacket!" "You have to. It's only 20 degrees outside." Even so, the cold stung the skin on the part of your face that wasn't covered. That's how you learned that 20 degrees is really cold." "But don't you have to calculate something? Isn't that difficult?" "You can, but why bother when the easiest thing is to check the temperature on the thermometer or the news, 20 degrees C., open the front door and feel what 20 degrees C. feels like. Now without any calculation, you have learned what 20 degrees C. feels like, not too warm and not too cold. Why would you want to calculate it in Fahrenheit degrees?" Puzzled look on their faces, like, "Why wouldn't you?" as if everything had to be translated back into something they have long been familiar with in order to be valid.
If that's the case, why didn't he fail on the questions he already answered? If he was nervous, it was because it was a subject he was not good at and he knew it. It's not like he walked in off the street. The contestant coordinator knew that he had the kind of personality they wanted. He just got flummoxed by math, like I would have been flummoxed by a Bible question or one about the Wild West or rap music.
@Ayush Mishra I think they made it look like he had to answer it immediately. I’d take a minute to recall my maths lessons and then the question cause I’m on vacation. Then spend another minute trying out all the combinations. Simple if you get the question but takes a lot of time to calculate each option.
@Kalel Castro tbh I answered this in less than 7 seconds but I understand what you are saying. It's a 15 grand question, he should have taken his time no matter what
@Kalel Castro this is a common misconception. People should take a moment to think instead of jumping on conclusion or atleast they can google it. Square number is a number of the form n*n where n is an integer and it's same as a perfect square.
@Arav Sri Agarwal My school sure must've sucked 20ish years ago. This was considered a 6th grade question. Lousy USA schools go figure the usual if anything.
@Astrielle Yep. I'm a high school teacher, and a huge part of my job is reducing the stress level of my students so I can get an accurate idea of what they know, rather than whatever they can push through the fog of terror they feel when they take a test or speak in front of a class.
@edeltwice People don't like to think either because they're impatient, lazy, or in a hurry. If those people you ask had just given a little time to think about what you said they could've figured it out. For example, it took me a couple minutes to understand adding 8 hours then switching AM/PM. I thought why switch the AM/PM and then i realized it represented 12 hours going by. 12 + 8 = 20 hours
I was about to say 16 then I thought “wait SQUARE NUMBERS, not numbers that lead to squares” then just remembered the high school equation, 3^2+4^2=5^2
I’m actually used to it at school. I come across 3² + 4² = 5² quite often, especially if I first saw it utilized on the Pythagorean triple. Everyone uses those numbers when talking about the Pythagorean Theorem. However, there were other times where those numbers show up. I’ve seen them while calculating the distance between two points on a coordinate plane using the distance-formula, and graphing quadratics like 2x² -2x +1.
It’s worth noting that the distance formula is just the Pythagorean theorem applied to the coordinate plane, so it makes sense for 3-4-5 to show up in it as well.
I thought they were asking for which two numbers that make a squared number, also happen to be squared numbers themselves. So the answer would be A: 16–> 4*4, 4 is a squared number. I read the question wrong.
I think problem is the writing of the question. At first I didn't understand it well. Until second reading the I could guess right answer. Yet I didn't remember about Pythagoras at all.
They're easy numbers that get put in questions in middle school/early high school math, but an adult might not remember perfect right triangles after all that time.
People actually knew about this triple without knowing about the pythagorean theorem. Plenty of engineers used that triple instead of the formula to measure out their buildings.
You do realise that the distance formula is just pythagoras right? Seeing the triple show up when calculating the distance between two points isn't "Other times where those numbers show up", it's the excact same.
From where I come from, we learn that at seventh grade in basic geometry if I remember correctly. Whats more interesting is that if we change the way we measure distance, than Pythagorean theorem may not hold, this can be discussed in general metric spaces where the definition of distance function can vary. For instance taking the surface of a sphere, and defining distance with great circles.
@Big Boy It's extremely basic, learned that in 6th grade in France And it's also a textbook example of trivial Euclidean distance in 2D, it comes up frequently if you have a nice teacher that doesn't want to make your life miserable with square roots all around On the non-expert scale, you could consider trigonometry to be halfway there and calculus to be fairly advanced. Still at the end of high school you should know all of that.
Shows up pretty often in introductory special relativity as well. (Calculating beta factors under the Lorentz expression, the slopes in a space-time worldline). But they appeared just about anywhere yeah, just a matter of actually being familiar with those.
@Avni Aggarwal could you expand a bit on this. I understand if you do apply some amount of critical thinking to this problem you have a good chance at coming up with the right answer, however what thought approach would be necessary here and how much effort should be allocated to determining a solution?
@Yujiro Hanma "A sum of smaller squares" : 2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 = 16 (4^2), just as much as 3^2 + 4^2 = 25 (5^2).
They simply added "two square numbers", to make it more clear which one was correct.
@Big Boy If you're talking about the United States, it makes sense, because many of the top engineers are immigrants. Also, as an American, advanced students here learn it in 8th grade while average students learn it in 9th grade. I see nothing advanced here.
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
I knew exactly what the audience was thinking, they immediately thought that 16 is the product of two squares (4x4), and forgot that the question asked for the sum. I, and probably a lot of the audience, initially thought that the squares had to be the same number, i.e. 4 and 4, forgetting that 3^2+4^2=5^2, which is commonly used to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem.
aDg 2k18 I agree it's not the best worded question, but the keyword is sum, not product. All squares are products by definition. Every answer was a square, so picking 16 just because it's 4x4 versus 5x5, 6x6, or 7x7 is just the audience being lazy. 'Sum' tells you it is a higher number that was two squares added together. 'Product' is multiplication.
@cotolengo sbilenco 0 isn't a square number, although I guess on occasion you'll find a book that says it is, like how some books say 1 is a prime number.
@demon in denim The fact that 0 isn't a square number should deter you from using it, I guess if you didn't know then your logic shows 0 is a bad answer too.
I’m about to learn trigonometry and related tidbits (like the Pythagorean theorem), so it makes complete sense that I didn’t know this :| some subjects I just passed magically but didn’t learn anything.
It is not used to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem (I don't think so) but is a common triplet. There is actually a formula to generate such integer triplets
aDg 2k18 Your ego will not lead you to success, kindly said, dear person. It'll narrow your view and disrupt your interactions with others, rendering you unable to enjoy open discussions in this vast world. I am not telling you to change, but warning you that this path will lead to suffering, only on your part.
@Colin Java It's not about that. The question is mathematical in nature, meaning someone needs mathematical skills beyond mere addition and multiplication. This is about the pythagorean theorem which certainly not everyone remembers.
0 likes
Colin Java2022-06-19 20:25:55 (edited 2022-06-19 20:27:39 )
@Abriel Robertsson no not really, you don't need to be aware of Pythagoras for this question. Really all you need to know is what "sum" means, cause the question tells you the numbers given are square numbers, so that is a big clue to what square numbers are. Once you've worked out what square numbers are, simply find two that sum to give one of the answers.
Those numbers are famous, though. It's the first and the easiest integer solution to the equation a² + b² = c². I think they call them "Diophantine triples" in math.
Nate the problem with that logic for answering 16 is the same could be used for 36 here 2 squared is 4*4=16, but 2 squared and 3 squared multiplied 4x9=36. You’ve gotta breathe and look at the 4 options in a MC question and it becomes fairly obvious it’s 25 if you are ok at math, but if you’re pressuring yourself too much and not thinking then mistakes like this guy or the audiences can happen.
@Colin Java Pythagorean triples are Diophantine triples for quadratic forms. But, you are right, Diophantine triples are a wider class, and my thinking was a bit off when I wrote that comment.
I missunderstood the question and thought that they were asking for a number which is a square of one number, which is a square of another number (2^2=4 4^2=16)
@Colin Java If you see a book saying 1 is a prime number, you shoul throw it into trash. If you count 1 as a prime you ruin the fundamental theorem of arithmetic
@Finnyke In fact from what I remember, the integers (Z) are a unique factorisation domain. In a unique factorisation domain primes are the same as irreducibles. But 1 is a unit, so is not an irreducible, hence 1 is not prime.
@Colin Java Edit: Actually nevermind, upon further consideration I'm quite sure that your logic is legit
Hmm... I guess it is a way to put it; but I feel like there might be circular reasoning here. Wouldn't we need to know for certain that 1 is not a prime to claim that integers are UFD?
Specifically, a UFD is an integral domain (a nontrivial commutative ring in which the product of any two non-zero elements is non-zero) in which every non-zero non-unit element can be written as a product of prime elements (or irreducible elements), uniquely up to order and units.
I think the point is is that it says "non-unit", so it's not talking about 1 there.
I haven't done it for 20 years so don't remember a lot of it.
@Raptor302 I wouldn't blame the audience, rather the system. It was literally more than 1 minute since the question was asked. We as viewers have the privilege of reading the question as many times as we like. They had to memorise a line not so small in size as well as the options. 1 minute is a long time for human short term memory and details start getting fuzzy. It's not as if they had come there with a sworn duty to help out the person there.
If there is a lifeline, then atleast read out the question again to the audience with the options to remove as much of ambiguity as possible.
the question is bad because it shouldve just been “which of these numbers” instead if “which if these squared numbers” theres no reason to add that the numbers are squared since theyre already shown.
but if the point is the confuse the audience then id say it was well done
OOOHHH ok that makes so much more since at first i was almost mad and i was like "noo!! there was more than one answer!!" i didn't catch the product. thanku😂
@Raptor302 the point of the other user likely was that 4 = 2x2, hence, the product of 2 squares (2x2)x(2x2) (which doesn't answer the question to be clear)
@Jeeva I mean sure if you really wanna split hairs about it, but typically, especially in a more colloquial context, “square number” implies a perfect square, because technically, every number is a square number, which would make specifying the term useless.
The question is all wrong since every answer is correct in at least two ways. A) using rational numbers =root of half answer^2 + same B) using integers 0^2 + root of answer^2
Okay B does not work since squares have to be smaller. - but A still works I don't see question implying that the numbers have to be whole
@Jimmy Neutron it's actually used in construction a lot. It's sometimes called the 3-4-5 rule. It simplifies making sure your walls are square and not tilted. You measure two sides and the diagonal. You could use Pythagoras' theorem or simply use a factor of 3-4-5 for example in yards or meters.
@Raptor302 But yet again, people may have a tendency to missread these types of questions, me being ahead of my classmates in math, I've made this mistake countless of times
@Raptor302 the wording got me to thought it gotta be two same squares but i guess weed played a little role too in regards of my reading comprehension.
@Stephen Hosking ya I read all these comments on this thread before watching the clip & the explanation for the answer makes the question wording dumb. I admit to being bad at math my whole life currently working on it but. I was honestly thinking in terms of perfect squares for the second part which is why I thought A I know what sum means
On a game show like this, typically that would be the level of complication for it. This was actually very convoluted. You had to work out all the sum of squares for all the numbers. So for 16, you go 4+12? no. 9+7? no. 16+0? Uh, yeah! LOL. I just realize 16 is correct.
@NoGi Friday "16 looked the squariest to them". LOL! And, you are probably correct. I've separately responded that the clip begins with the host saying "This is for sixteen thousand dollars" so the word is also in their short term memory and sounding like a good, wholesome number. If I were "guessing" I would have avoided it as "too obvious" - maybe.
@cotolengo sbilenco 0^2 is a square, but it is not a square number, because that requires it to be a counting number. It's technical to be sure - I could imagine defining "square number" as a squared whole number, as well.
Actually, I doubt the audience was thinking anything. Most of them mindlessly just clicked something so that boring question would go away and some pop culture question would replace it. Thinking is a burden to most people.
@Nimisha Rangarajan No. Because 2^2 is 4. So 4+4 is equal to 8, not 16. The question is asking for the sum of two squares, not the product. I totally get why you’d think that though and I think I made the same mistake at first too. Math is hard sometimes even when it sounds easy 😮💨
@Aspark Deity LOL, yes. I wasn’t thinking when I replied. I got this right the first time I watched it. People in this thread are getting tripped up over 16 being a square number and the PRODUCT of two squares vs. the SUM of two squares, which is what the question asked for.
to me, there was nothing to suggest that the smaller square"D" numbers could be different. The question should therefor be asked, what two radicals equal one of the options (something along these lines)
@george hatzimanolakisThe grammar of the question seems to suggest the two smaller squares are different, but of course, the math is all that matters. Multiple choice answers make the phrasing of the question much more forgivable.
@John Wilburn the grammar? Maybe syntax but maybe because I've never used the word 'square' when referring to an exponent of 2 ever, only using the word 'squared' which implies an action had happened as opposed to giving the number a qualifier like being a square number. Multiple choice doesn't help in math, I find, as a lot of answers revolve around something doing the wrong math.
@george hatzimanolakis Yes, grammar, and the multiple choice ruled out the possibility of anything after the decimal point. On must still understand the math, but there was a bit of free help there.
@John Wilburn that statement is also useless because you're basing 'my' language skills to 'my' math skills. You're still trying to be edgy bud, get a life
@John Wilburn well then that implies that you're knowingly trolling. Even though I know u r, the absolute stupidity of all your comments in this thread make it hard to ignore. That's a notch for you sir
It might have been easier if the grammar had been different, the second to the last word in the question might have been expressed"squared" instead of "square"
At first I thought the answer was 25, but after rereading how the question was written, I changed my answer to 16. I can't blame this contestant for having the same misunderstanding of the question, given its wording.
Bro ever heard of PYTHAGORAS THEOREM. Its literally so clear One of the pythagoras triplets is 3,4,5. Now if we square it it would be 9,16,25 and we know that that 5 is the sum of the squares of 3 and 4 and according to the basic amths philosophy a ratio cant be changed in its value if it is squared or multipled or divided by the same number hence the we can easily square the triplet 3,4,5.Thus we can make it out that 25 is the sum of 16 and 9
It was technically asked very badly though. The question was which of them was the sum of 2 smaller square numbers. Which means the correct answer is ALL of them. They didn't say integers, just numbers. For instance 5.76+10.24=16. Both 5.76 and 10.24 are square numbers. Just not integers.
@monstertrucktennis why be pedantic when you haven’t got a grasp of what you’re being pedantic about? Perfect square and square number are synonyms, and no one who studies mathematics even uses the former term.
Can you be honest with me ? Do you think your a good person? Yes ? How many lies have you told in your life, have you stolen something, even if it’s little ? Have you ever used Gods name in vain ? Jesus said whoever looks at a women to lust for her has committed adultery with her in his heart, have you look with lust? I’m sure we have broken these commandments. So by your own admission via your conscious you have admitted to being a lying thieving blasphemous adulterer at heart do you still think your a good person ? You have to stand before God on judgment day, now if He judges you by those Ten Commandments do you think you’ll be innocent or guilty? Sin is so serious to God that He gives us capital punishment, death for our sins. The Bible says for the wages of sin is death, we earn death because we sin against God. But God provided a way out of hell. God "Jesus" in the flesh lived a perfect sinless life and paid our fine we owed God from our sins by suffering and dying on the cross. And on the third day He rose from the grave and defeated death, it was impossible that death could hold Him. And if you want to be saved you must repent of all your sins "which means turn from them"and not live a hypocritical life which means you say, I'm a Christian but still lie, steal and fornicate, and you must trust alone in Jesus not in good works or you being a good person and the Bible says God will give you everlasting life. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9
@medexamtoolsdotcom Your interpretation is technically correct but I think it’s pretty clear what the question was trying to convey, and of course all of the answers are not correct. I like how you thought outside the box though.
Y'all should know that this man could have different education than some of y'all😭💀 also places teach subjects a different grades. This was learned in middle school for me in the 8th grade
Olly Dickinson you care about spelling mistakes done by other people on the internet? Therapy bro, therapy. Urgently! It’ll do you well. Best of luck with life
@Santi Decunto you care about someone correcting spelling mistakes done by other people on the internet? Therapy bro, therapy. Urgently! It’ll do you well. Best of luck with life
@AKRIDASGAMWEKSOGIINI In Greek, the plural of a suffix ending in -is becomes -es (analysis > analyses; hypothesis > hypotheses); and -a becomes -as or -ae (vertebra > vertebras or vertebrae; formula > formulas or formulae),
however, for the suffix -as, we have little guidance, since we might simply determine that "Pythagoras" ends in "s" and thus we would possibly have to resort to -s becomes -ses;
now, we might also extend this further and assert that -as becomes -ases or -asses;
therefore, we might finally and rightly contend that the plural in Greek for Pythagoras should actually then be: Pythagorases or Pythagorasasses. I'll show myself out. - j q t -
@John Quill Taylor bruh.. first: vertebra and formula are Latin words second: there's plenty of guidance for the suffix -as in Greek: μαλάκας > μαλάκες, αιθέρας > αιθέρες etc. third: trust me I'm Greek :)
Stephen Hosking2022-11-05 04:13:30 (edited 2022-11-05 04:15:20 )
The question begins with her saying "This is for sixteen thousand" so "16" has been plugged into his subconscious, and under the pressure of the situation that number will keep sounding right to him, especially as it also has the symmetry pointed out by many people here, ie 16 = 2^2 x 2^2. The same would go for the audience (albeit, under less pressure). Tough one!
I've watched a lot of Derren Brown - who (for those who don't know him) specialises in directing people's behaviour with subconsious cues.
I wasn't talking about you, Sir, but about this smart man getting a mathematical question wrong, which normally he'd be able to get.
You didn't have pressure of the situation, the majority of the audience also saying "16", and also that sound "16 thousand" at the back of your mind.
It isn't "easy math" - that's why it's a $16,000 question.
It's not "What is the square root of 3 squared plus 4 squared?". Which would be "easy", and maybe worth $500, because even that would be a challenge for most people.
But the question requires someone to work backwards from a number to pick one of four constructions, under pressure.
Well, for me, the scariest part of this is that you think 30% of the audience gave the correct answer when it clearly reads 22%. You didn't even need to read the question or do any maths, just copy a two digit number.
@I'm not arrogant, I'm just better than you. there are clearly two polls shown in this video studio poll and AOL poll (America online poll) and I'm clearly talking about the studio poll which shows that 30% audience chose option B 25=(3^2)+(4^4) so your reply makes no sense you are clearly arrogant but you ain't even better than those 70% people who can't even do basic math
When the question originally popped up, I thought that it was reasonable to get it wrong… with only a few seconds to answer, it can be stressful. Then he’s sitting there for like a solid minute and still not answering
This is so easy, I already know the answer as soon as I read the question, we learned this in grade 8 here in China and about 3 other similar sets of numbers used for right triangle problems.
ngl I was sure it was 16 because I thought that whatever the square root of the number was also had to be a square root, then I realized that 16+9=25 and that both of those are square roots and now I feel that I've been stupid for too long
0 likes
player 152022-01-04 21:41:32 (edited 2022-10-26 13:25:00 )
As someone who always chooses anything that ends with the number 5 when faced with a mathematical problem, this brought a smile to my face.
Edit: I decided to check the comments again, and oh boy did the math professors came.
@KaaiPlaysPiano That's not what I meant. I'm talking more about problems that require proving. E.g. Given a function f(x,y,z) and a positive ε, show that ∃ δ > 0 such that ∀ (x,y,z): √(x²+y²+z²)<δ implies |f(x,y,z)-f(a,b,c)|<ε
Well, it's not so hard to show that since it's just using the definition of a limit in higher dimension but that's the first thing that came to mind.
What if the question is "which one is a prime number"?
0 likes
Tom F. Oolery 2022-08-02 18:40:47 (edited 2022-08-02 18:45:50 )
@Sayantan Saha since 1 can also be written as ½ + ½, ½+ ½ + ½ + ½ = ? (½ + ½)² +( ½ + ½)² Now taking denominator common ((1+1)/2)² + ((1+1)/2)² =( 2/2)² + (2/2)² 4/4 + 4/4 Now taking squareroot cause why not √(4/4) + √(4/4) = 2/2 + 2/2 Now taking the denominator common again (2+2)/2 = 4/2 4/2 = 2 Therefore, 1+1 = 2
Figured that surprisingly quick. First take any of the numbers minus 1 to see if a squared number comes out, then 2, then 4 and so on until you find another squared number.
Tbh the wording confused me a little bit. I thought for some reason that the square root can be split into two components and then square those to get the original. Eg. 25 -> 5. So you can have 3 and 2 squared to add up to 25 (which it doesn't, and that doesn't work for any of them lol).
Technically it’s not a valid counter to ‘when will I use this’ cause you volunteer to go on this show and it’s your decision on what knowledge you keep lol
A lot of skills you learn in Maths are only useful for specific careers. By teaching them, it keeps your options open. I personally learn them because I find them interesting.
I got the correct answer but at first I under analyzed the problem. I was thinking the square of the answer had to be one of the two numbers to be added. But I knew 16 was wrong right away.
No, I think that they just had wrong opinion about question. Firstly I answered A. It's hard to notice if you read fast that there is not word "product" but "sum". So part of people my think about 4x4=16 and not about 3^2+4^2=5^2
@Кирилл Русских assuming the vast majority of the audience are native speaking english speaking americans that's a poor excuse considering the fact the question was read multiple times. And that doesn't justify 72% failing 4th grade maths anyway.
@Hrit Roy the question really wasn’t that clear, lol. All of the numbers could have been summed from two squared complex numbers. This is just one example of how flawed the question was lol.
It would work out if the question said a product of. I thought of A as 8+8 but 8 is a cube root of 2 which erases it from the list of possible answers.
@Raleigh stop playing smartass, it’s obvious the question is about a whole number being the sum of two whole numbers that are themselves squares. It’s a number theory question, not an algebra question (root of polynomials).
If you didn’t get the right answer then you are in the 70% of the audience who didn’t get the right answer. Don’t try acting like you were too smart to get the answer they were looking for.
@Mark Which of these square numbers also happens to be the product of two smaller square numbers?
Answer: 16
Edit: Because the number is the result of two other square numbers my mind automatically went for a square of squares. Totally skipping over the word sum .
@Dexter Antonio Your calculation is right, of course, but it is not a valid answer to the question as it specifically says "sum of two smaller square numbers".
@Dexter Antonio Sure, but your calculation is 0+16=16. And the question demands two smaller square numbers. 0 is smaller than 16, but 16 is not smaller than 16...
@Jens Raab the question doesn't especify if the smaller number is the squared number or the positive root of the squared number. 4 is not smaller than 4 but 4 is smaller than 16.
@[redactado] [redactado] The text of the question is very clear: the correct solution is "the sum of two smaller square numbers". Not of smaller roots, of two smaller square numbers!
@Al Quinn it says "which one of these square numbers also happen to be the sum!" One of those four in the list is the SUM of "two smaller square numbers" so only TWO other square numbers is what we are looking for NOT THREE square numbers.
@Raleigh Holy shitt dudee yeaaa 💀💀, they should have mentioned the word ' perfect square ' Coz like even (√8)² + (√8)² = 16
2 likes
Phil J2022-01-30 00:11:07 (edited 2022-01-30 00:12:35 )
@Raleigh Yeah, but while technically true, it's pretty damn obvious just by using basic logic that they are only looking for the sum of two squared integers. Anyone of at least average intelligence should be able to deduce the intended answer pretty easily. Unfortunately the average IQ of YouTube commenters happens to be roughly 85 or so (I'm not joking or making this up).
To be fair, these kind of math questions are difficult for most; even college graduates. Math is a language, so just the wording loses half the people, and then most folks already don't know what a square number is.
0 likes
Replies (1)
Nick R2022-12-28 01:58:57 (edited 2022-12-28 02:00:58 )
Bloody hell. Did you even go to school? Anyone who attended college should know what a square number is. You learn what a square number is in primary school.
@Sanidhya Suresh Since you are passionate about English grammar, I'm sure you won't mind me issuing the following correction: Really? Go read some English grammar.
@Sanidhya Suresh I think you do have the patience because you successfully typed the first one; that means that you must have lacked the knowledge to avoid creating a fused sentence. You seem to be having further difficulties with English, so allow me to assist:
Bruh, I don't have the patience to put a freakin' question mark and all, but that guy seriously said "shameless of the people."
As you can see, there were even more errors in the above sentence, but perhaps the most egregious of these is the lack of a comma before "and," which resulted in a run-on sentence. When using a coordinating conjunction to link two independent clauses, one should always designate the end of the first clause with a comma. Punctuation is organization, and organization facilitates coherence.
Studio audiences to a TV or radio program are directed to applaud whenever the director turns on the"Applause" sign. On this program, one such instance occurs when a contestant finishes her/his turn in "the hot seat," regardless of how that turn ends (missing a question, leaving without answering the question, or winning the million dollars).
@Sanidhya Suresh brah, you took one on one with your indian accent? I can feel your words. "D"....... engDish grammar. KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu.
🙋♂️ I understand the question and I understand the answer, but I don’t know how I’d go about figuring it out by myself. Is there some way to intuitively know which square numbers are contained by other square numbers other than brute forcing it?
There are methods but those aren't easily done in the head. So brute forcing it is. However, considering the first squares only (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49) there's not much need for brute forcing. Also 3, 4, 5 is probably the most famous Pythagorean Triple.
Yeah but in reality a host shouldn't hint you whether the audience is wrong or right, that's cheating. It's supposed to be a risk he takes with that lifeline. So I still respect that he ignored her warning.
@Daniel Hoang i don't think it's cheating, because while the hosts pretty often make it seem like they're subtly hinting an answer - from time to time their hints point in the wrong direction. (most often when the player is already settling for the correct answer, and they provoke them into doubting themselves). so you can never know for the sure if the hint is genuine, which is part of the drama of the show, the way i see it.
Bruh, as soon as she read the question i know what the answer was. It's often a go to for people writing maths questions on Pythagoras when they want it to be a nice, small integer.
Anyone can feel confused by this question if they have forgotten the precise definition of the term "square number"; even people who have studied high-level math, because high-level math can be learned without knowing exactly what "square number" means, since you are almost never explicitly asked to specify that term in those math courses.
At first I couldn't figure it out because I assumed the two square numbers had to be the same... And I was stumped because NONE of them were correct under that assumption. I could imagine under this pressure it'd be even harder to think straight.
The questions says "... the sum of two smaller...". This in the day to day language means "two different numbers". So I get what you're saying, but remember this is a show broadcasted on TV...
I totally understand what you mean. I did get it right, but AFTER I read a comment saying “It took me a minute to understand the question.” That’s when I thought, “Hhhhmmmm maybe I need to read the question again.” I was trying to put myself under pressure like this guy by making myself answer it right away. When I read the question again with better composure, I got the answer right away. Honestly, people need to stop being condescending because unless you’ve been in his position watched by a live audience and millions of TV viewers, as well as having a lot of money at stake, we really don’t have the right to say anything.
SupaDupaPixelGirl You’re parallel to someone who has the right to say something to a student, but you don’t have the right to be their teacher. Also, I wasn’t replying to you. Furthermore, your last sentence speaks volumes about your character as well as your lack of composure.
Luis, smartest response I've seen here. Me, I just thought ... Pythagoras. 3 - 4 - 5 is the classic example used in teached the Pythagorean theorem. And if you don't know what that is, I'm not explaining ... because you were probably one of the people that said A.
Steel Vendetta the question is straightforward, you just start from every smaller square number, eg 4 and minus from each option to see if the outcome is also a square, you do this till you work up to the highest number. The man could’ve easily used his brain but I understand the pressure. I found the answer by getting 5 minus it from 25 and the answer
I barely even read the question and I saw 25, I immediately knew what was going on and knew it was B. Come on, this is one of the most basic math, but people prefer to waste their time in trash TV shows and series than to learn something useful for their lives and society.
its impossible for them to be the same let a and b be natural numbers and a^2+a^2=b^2 2a^2=b^2 b=-sqrt(2)a or sqrt(2)a both of the options contain an irational number and an intiger thus meaning that b must be irational but thats contradcting the first statement meaning the condition we set on a,b is impossible thus the sum of two similar square can never be a square number
why would you assume that? it says "sum of two smaller squares", not "two times a smaller square". also, there is literally no square number with that property.
@poignant it doesnt have to mean two different numbers, at least not in math talk. however it should be very clear from the phrasing that choosing two different numbers is not excluded.
In fact, there are NO perfect squares that match the conditions you thought they were asking for, because that would require the square root of 2 to be a rational number. See if a number is a perfect square, it is of the form x=n^2. But if y=2*n^2 is also to be a perfect square, then y=m^2, and the result would be the square root of 2 could be expressed as m/n with integers m and n.
Why on Earth would you add your own arbitrary restrictions on top of a math problem? Having trouble understanding this but a lot of people are saying it. If I asked you to find two numbers that sum to 25, would you assume they have to be the same?
I struggled with math at school - somehow made it through 58 years in life so far without that question surfacing, lol. But hey...I would've gone home with $1k I didn't have when I arrived for the game. That's simple math I can relate to.
I used to be a streamer, part time, streamed around 2 hours 50+ times. I can say that it's really not that big of a deal, but yes, your focus will shift from the game to chat, and that moment triggers a really terrible and unnerving feeling. The feeling of being good at something but showing the opposite of it, helplessly
I played against my favorite pro starcraft player in person once. you never really know when or how the pressure is going to affect you until you're there. God I played like I was bronze, but I was mid-diamond at the time
@Marcelo Elias Well I don't think everyone in the audience was prepared to answer the question, the host gave em like 5 seconds to choose their answer.
@Marcelo Elias right, but 5 seconds is barely enough time to actually read the question if they weren't paying attention, why do you think they got it wrong? they probably just guessed cuz they panicked.
@Marcelo Elias I've been in a high honors math class (calculus currently) and even I got the question wrong. The question is worded so the question seems obvious at first. From my observation, this question makes you think of a smaller square number than 16, the first thing your mind jumps to should be 4 (or 2^2). You have to pay attention to the "sum" part of the question and realize that you have to use two different square numbers.
I don't have a problem with someone not having a clear idea of what "square" and "sum" mean. However, I don't like the fact that he didn't even TRY to interpret the question out loud, which is what many people would do.
He would, at very least, have given himself a chance if he'd said some thoughts out loud, something like this...
"Okay, I'll try to figure this out. We're talking about square numbers. All of these are apparently square numbers. Is 16 a square number? It's 4 times 4, right? That's what square MEANS... right? Okay... so now I want to find one that is the SUM of some other numbers... and they have to be squares too. What does SUM mean? Does SUM mean adding or multiplying?"
If he had done that, more of the audience probably would have gotten it right.
If he's incapable of reasoning like that, then he's not equipped to win a lot of money on a quiz show.
@UTU49 well not everyone does their thinking out loud so i don't think you should judge people's smartness based on whether they spoke or not. this is more a case of critical thinking skills.
Clearly, this guy was under pressure. i tried to answer this question without pausing the video and i still felt pressured and was incorrect. i reasoned in my had that this question is asking for the pythag theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2), but even then i had a mental blank and didn't remember the 3,4,5 triangle or was able to figure out which numbers to use.
Though I do agree that speaking out loud would have helped. Not always, but on this specific game show it does help to speak out loud because the hosts will try to be as forgiving and helpful as possible. The host even says that she wasn't sure of his thought process so she can't judge whether the audience poll helped or not. If she knew what he was thinking it would've been easier for her to hint him in the right direction.
@demon in denim Oh no. His 'smartness' is judged upon him failing an elementary math question. It is simply implied from there, that he didn't even try to think it through.
I played fortnite with a big streamer callled xqc for an hour in front of over 100K live viewers, I actually just felt nervous the first minutes and then it was completely chill and I could focus great, I guess im just built different
@UTU49 It's easy for us to reason it out with no time crunch and no pressure, but up there on stage, you could see his mind blanked out. So he asked the audience, who were given a pretty short amount of time to reason it out. So he went with the majority, which happened to be wrong.
@Kamike Serpentail Yup, 100% this. You never know how you are going to react until you are in that situation. Nerves, stage fright, being star struck, and the like all can make you freeze up with panic, fear, or both. Once either of those set in, it's much harder to think clearly, let alone when you are on a time crunch.
@Hugo Whitacre They also used some basic psychology too. They started with 16, which as you said, 2x2=4 and 4x4=16. That thought went through a lot of heads right away, even mine until I took a step back and reasoned it out, and once your mind is on that train of thought it's REALLY easy to overlook the word sum.
Took me 30 seconds to get it, I realized it was easier to try to subtract the smaller square numbers from each and the number 9 made me immediately realize 25 was the answer, especially when you literally get 16 subtracting 9 from it.
I mean you have the choice between any prime numbers derived from 1 - 6, wasn't that hard.
Basically, you're supposed to recognize that 25 = 16 + 9 = 4^2 + 3^2. If you have enough time you can do it by a process of elimination.
I think we all learned an important lesson though. Don't feel safe going with the slim majority or a plurality when it comes to math. Math is not democratic.
+Elsa Bunny why? I heard that word like 30 years ago and it´s not like you need square numbers alot in your life. Well ok, sometimes you use them, but you dont think about how they are called. It´s not like you say "oh, I need the square number of 4 socks for this business trip". So either you got refreshed by school knowledge of your kids or you simply remember something. I don´t think it´s sad if others dont. It would be sad not to know how to square a number but who cares how the result is actually called? I need 8 pairs of socks. Got it.
+Alan Falleur Well, the largest number was 49, or 7^2. If you just do the squares in your head you get to the answer pretty quick (1, 4, 9, 16) and see that 25 is the sum of two of those...
It honestly took me about a minute to figure out the right answer (without looking) because I had to seriously pause and understand the exact wording on the question and what was asked. Unless you have this memorized you'd have to do a straight up count, both he and the audience rushed it
I was overthinking and thought the smaller square numbers had to be the same (like a 2²=2+2 type of situation) but reading the question again I realized the question was not asking for all that. I can see how someone would get it wrong. The pressure of being timed and having a large audience plus the whole world watching would cause me some serious mental blockage, especially once I realized I misunderstood the question.
I completely agree. I was overthinking it too. Eventually I came to Choice B, but I'm just chilling on my own. Imagine all that people watching with those high stakes... I'd black out on math for sure. Sad.
@rajatsingh9 no he was technically wrong. even if you assume that two equal numbers are valid, none of the answers work. 8+8=16 and 8 is not a square number, 25 and 49 arent even divisable by 2 and 18+18=36 and 18 is also no square number. The only answer that works, no matter if it wouldve stated "two different numbers" or not is B. 9+16=25, 9 is a square number and 16 is aswell.
@Houdini you're a live example to what I said. Really bad reading. If you read again, you can see that I meant the same thing. That the que says sum and not product.
I literally did the exact same thing and it took me a while to realize the answer was B, 25 which is the sum of 9 (square root 3) and 16 (square root 4). Im wondering if half the people didnt vote and it defaults to answer A.
9 likes
Joseph Atchison2022-01-08 18:56:55 (edited 2022-01-09 04:10:17 )
Absolutely agree. I even have a stem degree and thought 16 at first, until I reread the question and realized I had misunderstood it.
@NoumenalSoup lol there are two kinds of people: Person 1 : oh I misread the question my bad Person 2 : oh I found the right answer so I’m gonna research people who haven’t and say they are bad at math because it makes me feel better about myself.
I’ll let you figure out your category on your own …
Ps: there is more than square numbers in math, for math is a rich material therefore you can suck at one area and be a god at something else. This is not representative of your maths skills …
It can‘t be the same square number twice because that would mean that the answer had to be an even number. Every number x2 is even. And since they would ask that, you would know that the answer could be two different numbers.
@Crimson the sum of 16 and 9, which a both square numbers is 25. 25 is also a square number. 2000 years ago every Roman schoolboy was able to understand that.
@IamGrimalkin No, perhaps not asking that stupid question at all would've been better. Imagine trying to use a phone a friend for that question? It'd be pretty much no use with just 30 seconds to read it and then give the answers. You'd need to read that question twice at least. And the ask the audience was useless too, of course.
@Mark Sommers The question is only hard to understand or process if you don't know what a pythagorean triple is.
Watching this, I had a pretty good idea what the answer would be before they even read "25" out; because 3/4/5 is the smallest and by far the most well-known pythagorean triple.
💯 thought the same thing, I kept looking at 16 and thinking that 4 is also a perfect square but 4+4 doesn’t equal 16… I might’ve just guessed that one too tho since it sounded the best. It wasn’t until I paused the video and thought about it without distractions that I interpreted the question right and remembered that 3^2 + 4^2= 5^2 like when using the Pythagorean theorem
Mac Lee2022-05-28 07:45:05 (edited 2022-05-28 07:53:31 )
This is literally just the 3-4-5 triangle. For anyone that even finished something like 10th grade it really shouldn't take any computation at all to get the answer. If you didn't see the answer right away you probably didn't do so well on the SAT math test.
For people that misunderstood the question and said it was poorly worded, it is not. Most people in this country are bad at word problems, and you are probably one of them. I've seen enough students to know that by now.
That would be impossible. A^2=2B^2 is impossible to solve for A if A and B are integers greater than 0 because A/B=sqrt(2) whereas sqrt(2) is irrational.
If 2X^2 = Y, X and Y cannot both be integers. You can see this if you draw an isosceles, right-angled triangle where the two identical sides have length 1. Since the hypotenuse is sqrt(2), it is impossible to make it an integer without making the two identical sides a surd.
You weren't overthinking it, what you thought makes absolutely no sense Alexandre trying to make overthinking a eufemism for being stupid or lacking concentration in the moment
Yea I was thinking.. well for it to be the sum of that square number the two numbers have to be the square root of one the numbers and the only square root of the square number that is still a square number was 4 (square root of 16).. 4 x 4 is 16
I don't get how people are saying the question is confusing. It's perfectly straightforward. You need to know what a square number is (a=n×n) but they give you a list of 4 square numbers to remind you what it means, 4x4=16,5×5=25,6×6=36,7×7=49. You need to know that sum means add. Even if you forgot that from school it's a very common thing in spreadsheets if you want the total of a column the formula says SUM(). So if you know those 2 things then the question says which of these numbers is the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, so that means the answer is the one where you can add 2 of the numbers in the square number list together and it equals the answer. The only smaller square numbers than the ones listed are 1,4 and 9. So you take the list 1,4,9,16,25,36 and try to add combinations of them together to get the result of 16,25,36,49. 4+1=5, 9+1=10, 9+4=13, 16+1=17, 16+4=20, 16+9=25 bingo! So starting from the bottom you have to do 6 sums to find the answer but they are very easy sums. If you think about it a little more you would realise that none of the square numbers are consecutive numbers so therefore you would never have A+1=B so you can drop 1 from the list to consider. Then you only need to do 3 sums to find the answer!
True, the question doesn't explicitly state they have to be 2 different numbers that you are adding together, but it certainly doesn't imply they have to be the same! But what if you thought that the same number added to itself was a candidate? Well any number added to itself must give an even result. The only even numbers in the list are 16 and 36. Half of 16 is 8 (not square), half of 36 is 18 (not square). So it's pretty easy to eliminate those possibilities even if your mind did go down that path.
Personally I worked it out the other way around. I started with the answers and tried to find numbers that would add up to it. I didn't even get as far as considering 1 and just thought about 4, 9, 16 and 25. 36-25=11 (not square), 25-16=9 square! So 25 is the answer.
I thought it was 16 -> 4*4 -> 2*2*2*2 Like… I assumed it was saying what square can be broken down into another square twice. 16->4^2->2^4. For the record, it is my bend time, lol.
25 -> 5^2 16->4^2->2^4 36->6^2 49->7^2 None of them can reduce like 16 can, from 4 to 2. 25 -> 3^2 + 4^2… unless you memorized that, I really don’t get how you’d just know that tbh. Like, I know how square numbers work, but in school I was never taught about adding them like that to my memory. I recall multiplying them and diving them though. If they said, what two numbers squared equal 25, then I’d get it though.
Mathematically impossible. If a² = b² + b², that means a = b.sqrt2, which is not even a rational number (as long as a and b are integers, and as long as i'm not a doofus)
I thought the same exact thing, I would have definitely gotten this wrong unless I got a lucky guess. Having the question be more specific could have meant he got the right answer
that's why the question was put in exactly this way. I think most people who brag about how easily it is would've failed in that situation or can only answer is because they memorized it from school.
I literally couldn’t figure out this question (I paused the video so I could figure out the answer) and thank you so much for your comment. I thought it had to be the sum of the same number as well
@Falk Flak Well, most of the show is about remembering a bunch of stuff you memorized earlier. In that regard, math questions are basically free passes, since you hardly have to remember anything apart from some elementary math terms. The rest, you just have to calculate. You have the time to do it.
Also, the question was put in a pretty straightforward way. Failing to comprehend written text is not the question's fault.
It's a confusing question. It reminds of that genius game or whatever that has convoluted problem solving baked into it. This at least has a rational to it, that other game (can't even think of the name) has got to be one of the dumbest games I've ever seen, that tries to be smart.
I don’t think this is overthinking at all, just a very poorly worded question. Somehow at least two or three similarly poorly worded Qs make it onto every scholastic entrance exam there is!
It's the smallest pithagorian triple and it's one of the first examples you see in junior school when learning the Pythagorean theorem. Should be considered basic knowledge.
Not gonna lie I am pretty bad at basic math so oh course I wrote it down possible basic roots and added them. I figure they meant two different root numbers not just the sun of two. I still got it right even though I’m bad at adding things or multiplying them in my head. Written out I might figure it out.
Wow! I can't believe most people got that wrong. 3² + 4² = 5² has got to be the most common equation used when teaching the Pythagorean theorem in school. I think a lot of the people who answered 16 just weren't paying close enough attention to the phrasing of the question and thought 4 and 4 were the two numbers referred to.
Unfortunately a few people don’t know how to READ, THINK, or understand DEFINITIONS: i.e. sum of two smaller square numbers.
*A square number is an (non-negative) integer that is the square of an integer* — this rules out all complex or non-integer numbers.
There is also a special case of 0^2 being one of the two terms but that fails the stipulation “sum of two smaller square numbers” since the other term of the two square numbers is not smaller then the initial square number.
Examples:
A) i) 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2 no, since left 4^2 is not smaller then right 4^2 A) ii) i^2 + (sqrt(17))^2 = 4^2 no, sqrt(17) > 4, plus sqrt(17) is not an integer A) iii) (sqrt(-2))^2 + (sqrt(18))^2 = 4^2 No B) i) 0^2 + 5^2 = 5^2 no B) ii) 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 yes B) iii) (-3)^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 yes B) iv) 3^2 + (-4)^2 = 5^2 yes B) v) (-3)^2 + (-4)^2 = 5^2 yes B) vi) 3^2 + 4^2 = (-5)^2 yes B) vii) (-3)^2 + 4^2 = (-5)^2 yes B) viii) 3^2 + (-4)^2 = (-5)^2 yes B) ix) (-3)^2 + (-4)^2 = (-5)^2 yes B) vi) i^2 + (sqrt(26))^2 = 5^2 no C) i) 0^2 + 6^2 = 6^2 no C) ii) i^2 + (sqrt(37))^2 = 6^2 no D) i) 0^2 + 7^2 = 7^2 no D) ii) i^2 + (sqrt(50))^2 = 7^2 no
@Michael Pohoreski don't worry about "two smaller square numbers", it can just be deduced that 0^2 is not allowed or else all answers would be correct. and, that phrase isn't clear. all it specifies is that the numbers used are smaller than the number it makes up, which, is obvious. besides, a general knowledge game show like this one wouldn't use 0^2 or negative squares, so the only numbers to consider are 1^2 through to 7^2, giving you 21 possible number pairs. 1^2 can be easily dismissed, as can 7^2. This leaves you with only 10 possible pairs to go through, and if you go upwards from 2^2 you'll get it by the 6th pair, which is 3^2+4^2.
Though in a stressful game show, you won't think of this that easily. you won't be aware of the number of possible combinations (it's inefficient to try and work out and it's unrelated), and you will be thinking of numbers that seem the most appropriate, rather than trying to brute force.
besides, try coming up with that comment in front of a live audience with $15k on the line being recorded on TV for millions to see.
I know how to answer this question, but I attempted to answer it without pausing at first. It was too much pressure and my mind blanked after I remembered pythag theorem and I couldn't discern any of the numbers in my head. But i'm pretty sure i know how to read and think, thank you.
@demon in denim Yes, it is pretty trivial to reject 0².
The point is that it isn't THAT hard of a problem when you only need to check 2² ... 7², especially that most people (I hope) learnt the common Pythagorean triple 3² + 4² = 5² in elementary school as Jeremy mentioned.
@Michael Pohoreski yeah, when it comes down to it the question is really simple. also i checked again and you actually get the answer by the 5th pair rather than the 6th.
@demon in denim your logic is wrong its says sum of TWO smaller numbers than the answer if you add 0 to 16 (or any of the options ) the answer will be 16 and both of its constituent squares(0 and 16) are not smaller than it since one of them equals it.
for American people 16>0 = TRUE but 16>16 = FALSE so 0^2 is out of the question since both conditions don't satisfy
@Mokshit Sati Yes, it was incorrect for me to include 7^2 as it is not a smaller number; but not 0^2. Per the question, 0^2 is allowed because it is smaller. Though after some simple logic, 0^2 is not allowed or else all questions would be correct.
Apart from 7^2, my logic is correct; just cap at 6^2 instead, which skips the elimination of 7^2.
@demon in denim 0 cannot be included according to the question both the SQUARES(not their square roots) that are being ADDED should be smaller then the SUM itself. question says in X1 + X2 = S, only when S>X1 and S>X2 In our case we take X1(any square between 1-7) and X2 = 0 , so X1+0=S => S=X1 Let's satisfy the conditions again S > X1(False since they are equal) and S> X2 ( true since S>0) Hope you understand. I took 10 min to make it if not ig you are not a math person
@Mokshit Sati These are just 2 different methods of deducing that 0^2 cannot be used. It can be used according to the question; but you can deduce it cannot actually be used using two methods.
One of them is your method: 0 + a^2 = x, yet a<x, therefore 0^2 is impossible.
The other one is my method: 0 + a^2 = x, yet that yields x = {16, 25, 32, 48}, and only 1 value of x (one of the answers) can be satisfied, therefore 0^2 is impossible.
@Michael Pohoreski Elementary school... let's say 6th grade. So you learned this at 12. Someone who is 30 would have had 18 years in between learning that. And the older you are, the further away that information is. There is absolutely no way you can expect someone to remember everything from elementary school. Especially when there's so much to remember on a daily basis.
@omega-snipe And how do you think calculators are made ? But yes I agree learning Math has it's own disadvantages because one of it's many products is the Internet which allows me to see a an utterly stupid comment of an ignorant person
3, 4, 5 problems are like the baseline to every Pythagoras problem. And not even that, you frequently get 3, 4, 5 type questions in vector problems and even trigonometry with the 37° and 53° questions. This is what happens when you don't pay attention in math class.
@omega-snipe How does this relate at all? If a calculator is the only thing needed for maths then we as a society would be probably way more advanced and wouldn't struggle with a lot of logical problems then.
How are you surprised? The majority of people don't know the preamble or their constitutional rights, something we all learned in 8th grade. Yet, you're acting surprised that most people don't remember Pythagorean Theorem? Get off your high horse.
@NekoMMD bruh It's basic sense which u will never forget in your whole life just like cycling...3²+4²=5², 12²+5²=13² there's much more examples like this We used to solve this in 5th grade, now we are at college
@Biswajit Bhattacharjee • 15 Years ago stop with what? 3-4-5 triangles are common in math. Now what you need to do is get a life. I posted all that a month ago.
@Michael Pohoreski haha. I presume you are someone into math. Besides as a reply to your original reply, we as viewers have the privilege of being able to read the question as many times, whenever we like. The audience however only just listened to the question once. The host should have read the question again with the options at least so that they could have had a better go at understanding the question or respecting the other options after finding the first option as a good in whatever logic they found right. I have the deepest sympathy for the person losing the 15k dollars as I have done greater blunders even on topics I have profound knowledge on because of human factors.
Anyways, should the reader get confused, real numbers are out of consideration coz we can always find two such numbers whose sum of squares equal to any perfect square or any number for that matter. So all options would be trivially correct.
I mean, let's just be honest: How many people use this kind of math in their day-to-day lives beyond school? You can't tell me with a straight face that the Pythagorean theorem is commonly used, let alone known by heart, by the average Joe. Knowledge that isn't frequently used tends to be lost over time.
Yeah the phrasing is important, i admit watching this it took me towards 16 too because Yeah i admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 and i have seen weird things on this shiw that seem like they should just be products but are treated in such a way
@Michael Pohoreski that is not correct. A square number is just the result of a number being multipled by it self. Hence square, like finding the area of a SQUARE that's got two equal lenghts.
a*a=a^2, hence a^2 is a square number
The definition you are providing is defining the "perfect squares"
I'm an effing 4th year Electrical Engineering student, and it took me like 5 minutes to understand and solve the problem, I do not blame the guy.
Seriously, it doesn't matter how 'smart' you are, there's gonna be gaps. It's uncommon, but sometimes I do have trouble understanding what a math problem is trying to describe.
Yeah, I am about to become a 4th year engineering student myself, and I do sometimes find it a bit tricky to wrap my head around these kinds of questions; it is almost like those phrases that use lots of negatives everywhere, kinda like "nobody was not absent when this video was not playing", so that you have to wade through that jungle of negative statements in order to interpret what it is saying.
This is an example of how an elementary math problem can trip up those who have studied advanced mathematics. My sister, an elementary school teacher, knows all kinds of basic facts that I've forgotten. She makes me feel dumb because, although I have a Master's Degree in Finance, she has a much broader knowledge than I do on general subjects, and she often reminds me of this because I can sometimes be an annoying know-it-all.
@LaughingStock55 I am currently studying a course on Electromagnetic Field Theory, and that course seems to emphasise a "pragmatic" approach a lot; in other words, the teacher doesn't care about derivations that much, he just wants us to use the finished formulas for various problems.
@nightdinosaur what I (incorrectly) meant was that x^2 = 2*y^2 has no solution in integers, which is a consequence of the square root of 2 being irrational.
You are correct that I neglected to add “aside from the trivial solution x=y=0”.
@Gamer That's not what the question was asking though. Although it seems similar to Pythagorean theorem. When add the square of two numbers and square root them you get the Pythagorean theorem. But this was asking two find two square numbers that added up to a square, 2^2 + 3^2 = 13.
Felipe Gomes You obviously can't assume that. If I tell you that there are two people in the next room who are both shorter than you, do you think to yourself, "Well, if they are both shorter than me, then they must be the same height as each other"? Do you find it tricky to imagine two people of different heights who are both shorter than you?
@64BitMan In what world is 13 a square number? What the question is asking is precisely the same as identifying a Pythagorean triple: 3² + 4² = 5² 9 + 16 = 25
I still dont get it, most likely cuz its not my native language, by reading the question im thinking of like 2³+2³ so its 16 and i have no idea why 9 and 16 are square, like doesnt square mean ²?
@O0OMega 9 and 16 are both square numbers bc they can be obtained by multiplying two of the same numbers. 3*3=9 and 4*4=16. So the question was asking what two square numbers can be added together to get another square number and since 9 and 16 are square numbers and they add to 25, another square number then that is the answer. Hope that helps
@hellion75 you weren't "talking" to anybody. Point stands, you chose to go to the comments and spoil the video for yourself, don't blame someone else for your choice.
@Gamer Yeah, Pythagorean theory is a great way to model this question. It can help prove that it works for 3² + 4² (to make 5²), 5² + 12² (to make 13²) and their multiples.
e.g. 3² + 4² = 5² and its multiples: 6² + 8² = 10² 9² + 12² = 15² etc.
5² + 12² = 13² and its multiples: 10² + 24² = 26² 15² + 36² = 39² etc
I doubt answering this will ever get me £16,000, but these are the kind of things a maths nerd like me will happily do for fun lol
Can't help but think the old maxim of "explain your answer" would've helped him here. You can't answer a maths question on a hunch or what 50% of a random audience think.
I got it wrong. My brain automatically went to 4^2. This was a classic case of my struggles with word problems and reading Too fast. When I was in school they did not teach word problems well at all.
The mistake made by both him and the audience was apparently misreading it as something about a square number that's a square of a square. He should have reread the question and read it closely, then it would have been obvious that you're supposed to add together two square numbers. He would have figured it out within seconds.
The question could've included "two different square numbers'', based on the question as it is stated people make the assumption that it's referring to two identical square numbers, then there is no two numbers that satisfy those conditions, it's remarkable to me that people must've actually just guessed.
Ok I get why the guy in the hot seat would have trouble. If you are EXTREMELY nervous it can be hard to do even the simplest tasks that are more than pure memory. However the audience? Really? More than 70% of the American public can't do shit like 3*3 and 4*4???!!!!! You gotta be kidding me...
I think the problem was the sort of question. It should be common knowledge but takes a while to figure out, and the audience had 10 seconds starting from when he called the lifeline.
Buddy Love First of all I'm not Indian secondly that's a sorry excuse, it is almost as if you said Americans are less intelligent than Indians oh wait you did
Buddy Love man i am indian. But still like people should have known but then again there are housewives old men and all sorts of people in audience. Thats why maths is important. The person should have known about it.
We got new computer touch screens at work a few years ago, at first they displayed military time... a coworker asked me how to tell military time.... told her for numbers over 12 just subtract 12...."ok it's 20:18, what time is that?" ... I asked "what is 20 minus 12?".... after looking around a bit she said "I don't know what is it"...........................
to be fair, the audience might not have been very intelligent since u didnt need an education back then but still could make a proper living. Now, we require education and most likely will not be able to find a decent job without one. also, education was complete crap back then and much easier.
The audience had a time limit.. and didn't have the question in front of them. So it's perfectly understandable they got it wrong.
The contestant however had the question in front of him, had absolutely no time limit and could have taken all the time he needed to work out the answer, unless he was told otherwise before the recording.
Half of what you said would be right if the contestant had a time limit but he didn't.
Max White You would only defend the audience if u found the question hard yourself. Anyone with high school education should know the answer within 10 seconds
Well, watch the European version of Millionaire and you'll be shocked at how easy the questions are. My mom badly wants to get on the European show because she said the questions are almost 3rd or 4th grade level! It's ridiculous. All she has to do it get up to the half million Euro question, back out and she still takes home 300,000 Euros, which is probably about $317,000.
1 like
Oscar Davila2017-04-11 01:03:20 (edited 2017-04-13 01:28:22 )
Welcome to America! And people still wonder why we elected Trump. This should give you a clue.
If I were in the audience I would have picked the wrong answer too just to shame him. This kid is in fucking college; he should be able to do this in his sleep.
no im really good at maths but i felt the question wasnt too clear .. i kept thought they wanted 2 numbers that are the same and squared that sum up to one of the given answers
Agreed I was one team captain on a radio quiz when I was 16.... I won my place by being the no1 student in the school but when the tape started to roll I blanked and didnt even remember my team mates names as I was supposed to introduce them! I got 100% of the questions wrong. Fuck that was embarrassing !
@Marinus Sommeling bcs they dont care about math and more likely have forgotten wtf a square number or sum even means. its something you will only learn in math class, not in real life because not everyone is going to be an engineer/teacher/mathematician/programmer
That's a good one. First answer that comes to mind is 16. But when you analyze it quickly you realize that 16 can't be that number....
0 likes
Kurt Morris2022-11-08 01:52:06 (edited 2022-11-08 01:59:51 )
Jay Leno would have a field day with this audience. I can relate though, my brain switches off under pressure, I'd have a hard time reciting the alphabet under pressure.
I wanna be honest: I'm really good at math and I got it wrong 🤦😂 for whatever reason I thought it was the product and not the sum and even before they showed the last answer my head went "it's 36, EZ" 🤣
So if it is the product instead of sum, did you think it was (2*2)*(3*3)=36? That is, honestly, the only "acceptable" incorrect answer. A minor misreading happens to everyone. And you're watching a TV show, not doing your final exam.
The question though is a trick question. Some people may have interpreted the question to mean "which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers" That could also mean well, (4^2) or (2^2) + (2^2)+(2^2)+(2^2) which is a summation of smaller squares that adds up to 16.
4^2 equals the square number 16, but the question requires the answer to be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Clearly 4^2 is not a sum of two numbers.
2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 is the sum of four square numbers, not two.
The correct answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
SamadAhsanVlogs YourBiggestFan XD How high are you guys?? Lmao It was proven to be no more than a country in 1896, when Uganda seceded from the World Union, otherwise known as the "NATO of yesterday."
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania (or Australia, and no, I am not starting a flamewar over the name of this continent. That's stupid) and Antarctica.
England is a city, so why does it seem impossible for Africa to be a country? And statistically speaking, Africa is way larger than England, so it definitely is possible to become a country.
Most people who haven't learnt about Pythagorean Triples are going to get this wrong. I got it right simply because it's a basic Pythagorean Triple you solve when using Pythagoras' Theorem in high school. The question is basically asking you to first recognize that the sum of two squares giving another square is just a Pythagorean Triple, which is a fancy way of saying it's an example of Pythagoras Theorem applied to a concrete problem. And second, the problem is asking you to recall that 3 squared + 4 squared is 5 squared. Almost everyone in High School encounters this.
I didn't know about Pythagorean Triples. I just know that the squares are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, and 49. Once you know that, it's easy. 9 from 16 doesn't leave a square, 25 or 16 from 36 don't leave a square,and neither do 36 or 25 from 49.
It's quite strange. I see that he has a blockade. But on the other hand he's got a lot of time to reset himself. If he at least examined the first number. Only the first one. Doing so his chances by guessing would already end up at 1/3.
It took me a while before I figured it out, I didn't really understand the question... didn't understand what they were asking but maybe that is because English is not my first language.
How did everyone get to their answer? I found the difference between the answers and saw if if it was a square number too. Luckily the very first one was 25-16=9 which is also a square number
It wasn't life that gave the wrong answer though, it was the audience. Unless life IS an audience..... I wouldn't be surprised to find I'm the focus of a Truman-show like situation.
You technically could make the argument that it's all of the above because they said "numbers", not "nonzero numbers" so you could just take the square root and add 0^2.
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
Easy way to figure this out. 49 is the max number you can choose from, therefore, your number range is between 1-7 (since 7x7 =49) So the numbers you can to choose from are: 1x1=1 2x2=4 3x3=9 4x4=16 5x5=25 6x6=36 7x7=49
Now take all those answers and randomly add them two together and see if one of the multiple choice answers appear. 4+9=13 (not a choice) 1+9=10 (not a choice) 36+9=45(not a choice) 9+16=25(ding ding ding, u ar winrar. Pass go and collect your £200, or in this case, do not pass go, go to jail and lose our on $15K. BlameTheAudience).
It's not badly worded at all. You just need to break it down and see what it's asking.
+mariotaz He doesn't have a paper and he's under pressure. One can easily think it's 16 if you take the product of 2^2 but they asked for a sum. Nonetheless, if most people were about to lose 15k, they would be distracted.
***** Not to sound rude but just a tip: If someone replies with a comment that doesn't make sense, it's possible that the original poster may have edited their comment (which is the case here).
He had 4+9=15 in his comment originally, but changed it to 4+9=13.
+mariotaz Hey, It is far too easy not to break it down at all! .. it is the supreme Pythagoras right-angled triangle whose sides are 5, 4 and 3 >>> 25 = 16 + 9
+Alexander Donets You are correct, but there are only 1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28 unique sums. For example, 16 + 36 and 36 + 16 are effectively the same sum.
And using the OP's logic, we can actually eliminate 7^2 as an addend, because the two addends need to be smaller than the sum. Thus there are actually only 1+2+3+4+5+6=21 unique sums.
@Aditya Singh I have videos on my channel that are 15 years old that I still reply to. I reply to everything. Also, the "u ar winrar" is a reference to the old "A winrar is u" meme. That was intentional.
to be fair, 16 is a great trick . I am assuming his instinct was 8+8 = 16, and then he overlooked that 2^2 is only 4 and not 8? My eye went to 16 as well , but then when I saw the audience choosing b and c i was like... oh yeah I am not using my brain. This show was great when i was a little kid, why haven't they brought it back?
I was thoroughly mind-boggled as to how 16 was the wrong answer, until I realised that it was the SUM of two square numbers you have to work out, not the product by multiplication. Perhaps that's what tripped a lot of people up?
@The Real Zizmon No, you misunderstood the question. Maybe stop being such a moron on the internet, and people might not call you out on it. They still won't like you, though.
@Ceares the problem would have to be (1+1+1+1+1)x0 to be zero. You are correct that anything times zero is zero, but you have to remember the order of operations (PEMDAS as many learn it). So if we multiply first we go from 1+1+1+1+1×0 to 1+1+1+1+0=4. Basically the multiplication only applies to what it's touching unless there are parenthesis
Heisenburger A better question for something like that is 8 / 2(3+1). A lot of the time it trips people up as they think working out the brackets in BODMAS means multiplying by the number on the outside. Therefore they work out 8/ (2x4) = 8 / 8 = 1, whereas the correct answer is 8 / 2(3+1) = 8 / 2(4) = (8/2) x 4 = 4 x 4 = 16.
Edit: after reading other replies it seems this isn't a problem with misunderstanding but more a problem with people being taught different stuff such as multiplication by juxtaposition priority.
Heisenburger I think the difference comes with the fact that your question relies on people not knowing any BODMAS whereas the other question relies on people getting confused when trying to implement BODMAS and messing up because of it. I think it makes a lot of sense for people to confuse expanding out the brackets as part of the bracket portion of BODMAS when in actuality it counts towards the multiplication bit of BODMAS.
@Thalweg About your 8/2(3+1) example: that's not "working out brackets and multiplying them by the number outside" , that's multiplication by juxtaposition, which is valued higher that multiplication/division, and in which 2(3+1) therefore goes before 8 being divided by anything.
So, you've basically written a giant fraction where 8 is a numerator, and 2(3+1) is a denominator. Thus, 8 divided by 2(4) = 1.
16 is a consequence of all systems like "BODMAS", "PEMDAS", etc., which are flawed and cursed - let them burn.
after researching I've found some mixed ideas about multiplication by juxtaposition priority. A lot of people are supporting the purple maths websites but a lot of people are arguing against it saying there's no such thing. I guess we'll never properly know whether a/bc = (a/b)c or a/(bc) but I think the moral of the story is that the question is badly written out and you should always use brackets to avoid ambiguity or you should just write everything as a fraction. I just took the question from on old question that went around the internet in 2019 and it completely split the internet (however I misremembered it as it was actually 8/2(2+2)).
Well, I stick to juxtaposition ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If I wanted to say that I divide 8 by 2 and then multiply by 4, I'd just write 8(4)/2, which is basically the same, because in such system a/bc is the same as ac/b.
@Grizzly01 no thats how he understood it works, words can have different meanings in different context and in this context understood means how he interpreted it not if he knows what it means so if you are gonna correct someone at the very least make sure they are actually wrong
@K1llsh0t The word 'sum' can be interpreted as the meaning answer. So, It's rather a trick question; the 'sum' or 'answer' of two smaller square numbers 4 and 4. And, because the sum or answer of 4^2 happens to produce a square number of 16, it causes the confusion. But yeah, I too realize some ppl solely see the word 'sum' as 'addition'
Besides, the sum of 4+4+4+4 equals 16. And there are at least two smaller square numbers.
@K1llsh0t The question should have been: Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two 'separate' smaller square numbers? It's visible that who wants to be a millionaire takes advantage of word usage.
@Grizzly01 All of these words are synonyms to the word 'sum' : amount, bulk, quantity, value, worth, aggregate, body, entirety, entity, epitome, gross, integral, mass, reckoning, sum total, resume, all, works, whole, totality, tally, system, synopsis, summation, summary, structure, score.
Its definitely because people forgot that you could have DIFFERENT square numbers. They assume oh yes it must 16 because the square root is 4, and the root of that is 2 Even though things like this make no real sense, trust in the audience to follow silly logic like this just cos its the first thing they tried
That's not what happened, they just didn't know. If they were multiplying two square numbers, more people would have picked 36 seeing as 9 and 4 are both square numbers and multiplying them equals 36
@axeblue yeah that's also how i understood the question, and i really can't understand it any other way. to be fair i also don't speak english as a native language and have never studied math in english, so that might be why. mind explaining why it's 25?
@Thalweg actually, both answers are correct. math is supposed to be universal but in reality there are loopholes and differences between countries. the answer for the problem depends on where you and your country place multiplication by juxtaposition (implied multiplication) in the order of operations. so it really depends, and many mathematicians disagree on it. also i remember hearing that one of the techniques used to be generally more acceptable, but now the other one is used more, but i can't remember which one was which. i'd imagine the one that places implied multiplication higher (the one with 1 as the answer) would be the older technique, but i'm really not sure.
personally i prefer to place implied multiplication the highest so if i had to choose i'd say that 1 is the "correct" answer, but 16 definitely isn't incorrect either.
anyways, the real problem is the way the question is formed. it's ambiguous on purpose.
@Defianto oh my god the mere fact that you understand multiplication by juxtaposition makes me incredibly attracted to you, i've had one too many arguments with dumbasses who think the only correct answer is 1
@changedmynamebcyallwouldntstopmakingpunsaboutit Ahem, I'm sorry to interfere where I'm not supposed to, but, clarifying your response to @Thalweg: If you say that you value juxtaposition higher, than you first multiply 2 by (3+1) and get 8, and then divide 8 by it and get 1. You, on the other hand, say that 16 is the answer in such situation. But you only get 16 if you stick to "from left to right" principle and first do 8/2=4, and then 4×(3+1)=16. With implied multiplication Or am I confusing something? ._.
@Defianto naaahhh that's mad embarrassing considering the fact that i just replied to you like that acting like i knew better and now it seems like i don't know what i'm talking about lol, i promise i do 😅
anyways yeah i said it wrong because i didn't bother to calculate the answer again since i've done it a million times before and researched the issue and argued about this a while back (the problem went viral in like 2019), so i thought i remembered the answer correctly and i knew i was right about the logic behind it so i didn't calculate it again or even think it through. i'm also high as fuck so that might be a factor too
Oh, ok, it's no big deal. Everyone has had their wires crossed like that sometimes X)
By the way, answering to your question about the video: the host meant that one of the numbers is a sum of two squares, and it's 25 'cause 25=16+9: 5²=4²+3²
@changedmynamebcyallwouldntstopmakingpunsaboutit I had a similar conversation with the other dude and we came to the same conclusion that it's a problem with the question being purposefully ambiguous. At the time, I'd never heard of multiplication by juxtaposition priority and after doing more research I found out that some people used it and some people didn't. I have edited the comment to reflect the new info.
It's important to read the questions very carefully. The easiest way was to just subtract numbers and see if it gives you a square, so you have 16, 25, do 25 - 16 = 9, oh bingo, can do 36 - 25 = 11, not a square, and 49 - 36 = 13, not a square.
Heisenburger stfu U can only abuse pemdas and bodmas Get a better life Using Heisenberg as name doesn't make u a legendary scientist who lead to quantum atomic model
@Ceares That's not how it works, you always solve multiplication/division first, which results in 0 in this case. Then you solve the rest, resulting in 4+0, which equals to 4.
@Thalweg Usually we don't write division with '/' on paper to avoid this kind of confusion. Even on a computer, you'd rather write : and then it makes a lot more sense. By definition '/' is just a simplified fraction bar, which makes it really relevant that people would interpret what comes after as the denominator. In your example the problem is poor algebraic formulation rather than priority rule. The proper way to write it would be 8*(3+1)/2 and now there's no confusion possible anymore
@Thalweg a/bc is ambiguous as text, because it's not clear if the c is supposed to be "under" the division line. It's also not a valid way of writing it for calculators or (most) coding languages.
@TheFinalChapters the word ''Tally'' still applies. We have the advantage of watching this in the future so it's easy to make fun of. Knowing the pressure of contenders today, It's obviously apparent he was struggling w/ the meaning of sum, thinking it wasn't 'addition' as you say.
The problem was that in the moment, he likely was just trying to add numbers together to make a square, and struggling to remember which numbers were squares to begin with.
The audience largely went with A because they saw the 16 and thought "yeah, sure, just add 4 and 4 to get it". Not realizing combining 4 and 4 to get 16 would be multiplication, not addition.
People are bad at math, especially when they use their gut instincts.
@Ceares order of operations dictates that the 1x0 should be calculated first, which gives us a 0 and a 1+1+1+1. and i hope you know that 0+1+1+1+1 is 4 or did you forget your kindergarten math class? {not a condescending comment, just a joke. (the last part)}.
@Ceares or here’s a simpler explanation: 1+1+1+1+1x0 =1+1+1+1+0 (use only the last 1 to multiply by 0) =2+1+1 (the zero is added into the 1, making 1) =3+1 =4 can’t believe i actually have to break down kindergarten level math (beside the multiplication). where i’m from, you should be able to see through this question like a rain of neutrinos by primary 2.
@Thalweg i multiplied both the 3 and the 1 by 2 but then remembered that your question was not an equation and there was no x to turn it from 2x(3+1) to 6x + 2x.
Many people do this mistake while doing arithmetics. Use BODMAS every time while calculating. BODMAS - Brackets of division, multiplication, addition and subtraction. In short, do division first, then multiplication, then addition and finally subtraction.
Louis Marti2022-10-18 10:41:38 (edited 2022-10-18 10:42:48 )
The most embarrassing part isn't even that he didn't know. It's that he chose to ASK THE AUDIENCE. Imagine thinking an American game show audience would know the answer. They clearly just picked the first option because they didn't know.
Naw it's kind of intuitive like pattern recognition or smth, you think 4 is a square of 2, 4 squared is 16 bam click it as answer. Forgetting to check wth you were trying to solve.
@Raulxz see you were thinking about maths you also forgot to think what I actually said. It's almost the same thing but opposite. Quite hilarious, really 🤣
It's not about the math, it's about knowing what the question is asking. Under the bright studio lights with money on the line, I doubt that guy could have remembered his social security number.
@Christopher Stein wtf r u asking Everyone has stage freight, but some hide and and some try to keep it down. Sure, tell everyone you could do this easily, but you're not the center of attention of 200 people, and in front of your parents, and 5000 more poeple live.
I instantly knew it cause I already know it. Even if I don't know it, I can guess it because I remember what the squares of numbers upto 13 look like without even thinking about it.
However, if I don't already remember those squares in my mind, I believe it would have taken a good amount of time for me to solve it without pen and paper.
Ben It depents how much math you take in high school. There are plenty of these kind of problems in high school math or at least were I went to school. Also did every math class they had. That probably is the reason.
BADRonne, congratulations. I figured out it was 25 when I reread the problem and looked over it. I just misunderstood the problem at first because it seemed weird to me. I had never seen a problem that was asking something like that before. And yea I'm pretty sure I'm better at math than you if you're in 8th grade.
Ben you are a fucking idiot. No matter how many times I've read this question I can't seem to find how it is 16. You must be like in grade 6 or some shit if you haven't seen a question worded like this
@lx Words like that are meaningless if they apply to everything like that. So yes, "square numbers" ARE "perfect squares"; negative nine isn't square just because it's (3i)².
Thinking it was 16 and saying "I am not bad at math at all" is quite a statement. It´s like crashing 10 cars in 10 days and saying "I am a good driver".
There is a difference between needing time to process what a question is saying, and not understanding the question at all - it seems as if a lot of people in here don't realise that fact. And by the way, this guy was nervous and under pressure in the middle of a game show.
if he took the first numbers (1 square = 1; 2 square = 4; 3 square =9 etc) and said them out loud he could do it, but he chose a silent mind freeze like I did
The only possible initial combinations range from 1^2 to 7^2. This allows nCr(7,2) = 21 possible combinations. Though it can be deduced that 1^2 and 7^2 cannot be possibly involved; 1^2 would allow all answers to be correct and 7^2 is not smaller than any of the numbers listed. This makes the range fall between 2^2 to 6^2, allowing nCr(5,2) = 10 possible combinations.
If you start cycling through these combinations upwards from 2^2, you will reach the answer by the 5th pair. 1) 4+9=13 ❌ 2) 4+16=20 ❌ 3) 4+25=29 ❌ 4) 4+36=40 ❌ 5) 9+16=25 ✅
@Meowmere you have to know what square numbers are at least. And this guy was clueless, I think. Probably thinking "dafuq, how numbers can even be square, it's digits, not polygons duh"
I know, I'm educated in math so I knew instantly, but if I wasn't I would have just worked it out. The question hints at what square numbers are, as the answers are all square numbers, so just means knowing what sum means.
@demon in denim Start with the smaller numbers, eliminating as you go. !6 has to be the sum of two squares less than 4, nope, 25 muss be less than 5, oh, 4 sq = 16, 9 jumps right out. 15 seconds flat.
At first I thought "oh this isn't so bad" and then I realized it had to be two different numbers, and doing math in that context? Forget it I'd be up there all night
Thats a useless method, just think of the first perfect squares and work out all the cominations if you want to, it’ll take 2 mins, not the whole night
@demon in denim But in practice you'd check the number itself starting from bottom 2². 16: 4+12, 9+7 ❌ 25: 4+21, 9+16 ✅ Since they are square 4,5,6,7. That'd leave 2+3+4+5 combinations
@Pawel Zielinski The question specifically asks for the result to be a square number. Not only are 8, 18, 32 etc. not square numbers, they aren't even listed as possible answers.
demon in denim2022-11-11 07:16:12 (edited 2022-11-11 07:16:28 )
@Amirus Sure, if that's what you would do go ahead. What I described, though, I did do myself.
My method uses square numbers to find an answer that matches one of the four on the screen.
Your method finds the difference between one of the answers on screen and all square numbers less than it. If that difference is a square number, that number is correct.
To be fair, I'm good at maths but would've struggled with this question. On one hand, I can do the actual calculations pretty easily - mentally listing the square numbers and trying combinations until I find the right answer. On the other hand, it took a little while before I thought to take this systematic approach, and it would've been worse if I was in that seat.
@mambda I don't remember the Pythagorean Triple. However, I know that 25 is the square of 5. Once you know that, you only have FOUR squares to choose from - 1, 4, 9, and 16...
I stupidly read this as "two (of the same) smaller square numbers" and was stumped. I can easily see people mistakenly misreading the question or making a slight error (such as thinking it's asking for which number can be composed of two squared numbers squared, meaning 16).
I think the most common confusion is thinking that the 2 numbers which must sum to the square, must the same number. For example 32 is made of 16+16 , which are both squares, but I quickly realized no answers satisfy that, re-read the question, then figured it out. I think a lot ppl just rush and guess what 'feels' right without slowing down and being methodical...that's a common mistake I make in math
but 16 can be also correct 4^2 + 0^2 as zero is also a number though it is whole number in question, it has not been mentioned whether to take real imaginary or whole number
@꧁ ꧂ because they haven't experienced this type of math for a while and it's not immediately obvious to them, "square numbers" is a confusing term and most people would probably only know that two squared is four.
That's impossible though because that would mean a square is the smaller square times 2, which would have a square root of the smaller square root times square root of 2, which is not an integer, and all of those listed squares have integer roots. I feel like people should know that kind of basic math intuitively.
If the question meant the 2 numbers had to be the same then it would say which square number is double a smaller square number. "The sum of 2 smaller square numberS" note the final s, instinctively makes me think that because it's pleural it has to be 2 different numbers. I didn't even consider that you could use the same number twice because of the wording. So it is surprising to me that so many people thought at first it had to be 2 the same.
@hello the question asked what squared number happened to also be the sum of two smaller square numbers, 4^2 + 0^2 doesn't work because 16 is equal to 4^2, not greater than
@Owen Aspinall noo when you ask questions in maths multiplying/division/exponentiation by 0 is a taboo so learn basic concepts, it's simply Pythagorean triplets, (2 consecutive squares have the sum which is a square of a higher no.)
@Panda Desu I get that, I was pointing out the flaw in the reasoning of 4^2 + 0^2=16, by saying you can literally do something similar with every perfect square. Somebody else already pointed out that the squares have to be smaller, so 4^2=16 is not less than 16. I understand that 25 is correct because of the Pythagorean triple 345. Also I get dividing by 0, but how is multiplying/exponentiating 0 "taboo"?
@gytis dramblewolfskis Definition of square number: The result of multiplying an integer by itself. 15 is not a square number because you can not multiply two of the same integers to get it
@PokeJin WWI ohh i get it now so square numbers is actually specific term that only includes integers and not any other numbers. Why tf isn't it straightforwardly called square integers or smth is baffling.
It probably didn't even dawn on him that the two square numbers could be different. When you're the one in the situation, it can be so hard to overlook the simplest things.
I didn’t even understand the question until I started going through the comments, and even after that I was still confused at what the correct answer was.
@squodge productions I think it was just the way the question was worded that had me confused at first, and that just kinda impacted how I thought about what the correct answer would be
@TRJ2241987 That's actually why it took me so long to get the right answer lmao. I worked it out like this. A) 8 + 8. nope, B) 12.5 + 12.5 Still no. OHH DUH 9 + 16. OMG I'm dumb.
Then I un paused and saw what the audience gave him. lol He was doomed.
@Alex G. I straight up didn’t follow the question lmao. I was thinking, like someone else said, that the two squared numbers had to be the same. I think the wording got him, rather than the math.
@TRJ2241987 even if he thought they it would be the sum of the same square number, that's even worse- this would imply ofc that the saught after number is half of it. In the case of 16 = 8 +8. Now 8 is ofc no square number (whole numbers). I mean sry but how can one not think this through for a sec when picking what the audience says. And to the others - they arent even pair numbers, so halfing them doesn't give u a whole number in the first place. So thinking that it has to be the same numbers shows even more incompetence.
@Dungeons and Dragons and Drive Throughs there are a lot of triangle examples where one side is 3 and 4 and the larger side is 5 , 3^2+4^2 = 5^2, 5 is the smallest number that is the root of two diffent intergers squared. But yeah talk me 5 seconds bu if I hot a ot of adrenaline flowing through me it would be hard.
For a minute I sat there thinking, I went through 2 squared 3 squared 4 squared 5 squared 6 squared 7 squared and thought that the question said 2 same* smaller square numbers and I was like that's none of them. Then I reread the question and realized I cannot read lol.
The problem here is the confusing phrasing of the question. I, as so many others, thought that the smaller numbers had to be the same, but 8, 12.5, 18 and 24.5 are all not square numbers. 2 minutes later (I paused the video before the answer was revealed) I realized that the numbers didn't have to be the same and I ended up at 25 which is the sum of 16 (4^2) and 9 (3^2).
Nah. Not confusing at all, it says clearly that the sum is made of two smaller numbers. If the numbers had to be the same then it would be "a number" that was doubled. Just admit that you got it wrong and life goes on.
Honestly though I can see how this is confusing bc I thought it meant 2 of the same numbers squared added together is the answer granted from a mathematical perspective this would be impossible
Stefan Unson2020-07-04 20:19:14 (edited 2020-07-04 20:19:35 )
Because she wanted him to lose $15K or else ABC would have been paying him more if he had answered the right one. ABC is in the business of saving money and making a profit, unfortunately...
When it comes to math masses go with gut feeling the contestant really put all his eggs even though it's known from generations masses are not good at math.
I can understand the audience getting it wrong because I presume they don't have a lot of time pressing the buzzer. They probably went with gut feeling. But the guy had all the time in the world available to him. He could have just tried out all combinations! But then again I know the feeling of my brain completely frying during a test, so I'd say it was his nerves that cost him $15.000.
Is there a time limit? Because... you know, for a couple of thousand dollars, I'd be willing to make my head work overtime.
Really, if someone tells me to take my ruddy time because I can win a shitload of money, even if I'm not a smarty, I can at least analyze the question and buy myself a couple of minutes. He went down without a fight. Could have at least tried even if the nerves told him to flee.
I get the guy, he's there all nervous, which would make me forget simple stuff too (you never know how many contestants got a simple answer wrong because they feel pressured) but the audience?!
I'm good at math, but I had to pause the video to take time to work it out. Under pressure, I like to think I would have worked it out, but I don' really know. At least I got the right answer now.
MrY3110w So that's what confusing? One word? It's not math problem then, it must be some kind of mental disease when one is not able to separate sentence in parts.
Vahe Hakobyan Like I said, the math was not hard, it was the wording of the question. I don't know what kind of math you learn in your country but you certainly do not need to know that the number is a square to know the answer. 4^2 and 0^2 is also correct.
PS Universities don't just take anyone for their engineering programs, especially not the university I go to. Before you take a jab at my abilities on the internet to show off your dominance, please read what I said before typing away
Vahe Hakobyan I'm starting to think you're just some 13 year old with a big ego. Seeing my post is one of the most liked posts on this video proves the fact that a lot of people agrees with me. If you scroll through the comments you can see other people also thinks the question was weird. I highly doubt you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you figured that out all by yourself and not because the video gave you the answer or anything :p
Vahe Hakobyan I think the question is poorly stated as well, in my opinion. I'm a computer engineering student at a university also and have taken Calculus and math courses. I obviously know the math but the question was weirdly stated. You don't need to be a jerk because other people think it's stated strangely. We all think differently after all, even a child could figure that out so don't be rude.
Vahe Hakobyan What are you asking for? It is a matter of opinion. We think it is oddly stated, you don't. We don't need to provide evidence for an opinion lol. We aren't looking to publish a paper on the oddity of the question asked. This is youtube, get over your pompous little self.
I'd like to point out a few things I noticed. And various points refer to various different people and their claims.
1. I can understand why people think the question is worded oddly. Most people don't know much about math and don't care to know much about math, so many people would not be familiar with reading/comprehending the precise language and terminology used in mathematics.
2. Being an engineer (or engineering student) does not mean you are good at math. You may be good at finding derivatives, solving differential equations, plugging numbers into formulas, etc., but none of that stuff is on the forefront of mathematics. Actual mathematics is proof-intensive. In a proof-intensive mathematics course, you will be lucky to see a few computational problems ever. Also, in a proof-intensive mathematics course, one must pay attention very carefully to what terminology is used. Mathematics terminology has very precise meanings and must be communicated in a very precise manner; otherwise, you may end up saying something incorrectly or saying something you did not intend to say. Most universities do not hold engineering majors up to this standard, teaching mathematics courses more as a "plug and chug" type course, as opposed to a course on actual mathematical reasoning and thought. So being an engineer (or engineering student) may give you an advantage compared to the average person on having seen more mathematical ideas, it certainly does not mean that you are an authority on mathematics.
3. "what's the point of telling you the numbers are squares numbers" So that it is a more interesting mathematical fact. Who cares if two square numbers happen to add up to some random number? It is far more interesting that a square number can be the sum of two smaller square numbers.
4. "The question is not poorly stated. It is just indicating the possible usage of Pythagorean theorem." I vehemently disagree. While one can connect the problem with the Pythagorean Theorem, the problem is not indicating or hinting at the Pythagorean Theorem being used. The Pythagorean Theorem is a theorem from Euclidean geometry. This question is a question about number theory. While connections can be made, this does not mean that the question is indicating any sort of possible usage of the Pythagorean Theorem here. I don't even understand how one could even actually use the Pythagorean Theorem to answer this question.
5. I agree that there's no reason to be a jerk here. It doesn't help to convince anyone of anything.
6. "4^2 and 0^2 is also correct." I know this was already pointed out, but I'd like to point it out again. The question specifically states that the two square number you are adding together must be smaller than the sum. 4^2 is equal to, and thus not smaller than the sum, so this is not a valid solution to the question as it is posed.
7. "Seeing my post is one of the most liked posts on this video proves the fact that a lot of people agrees with me." Okay, good. I know you did not suggest this, but I'm afraid of people reading something you did not say into it. Just because a lot of people agree with you does not mean you are correct. Again, I'm not saying that you suggested you were correct. (You didn't.) There isn't really a "correct" or "incorrect" about what you stated anyway, but more about that in point 8. I'm just bringing up this point because people have argued on this video before that just because they have gotten a lot of likes (or pluses or whatever) that they are correct. That is certainly not the case. Especially for things relating to mathematics.
8. The main "debaters" (so to speak) in this argument are not arguing against each other. One side is arguing that the question is worded strangely, while the other side is arguing that the question is worded correctly. Yes, the question is indeed worded correctly. And yes, most people do consider the question to be worded strangely, weirdly, or oddly. These things are not mutually exclusive nor are they opposites. It is worded correctly in that there is one correct answer and all of the words make mathematical sense based on the mathematical definitions. It is worded strangely in that most people don't have an exposure to the precise language that mathematics uses, and thus, are not prepared to read a question with this caliber of mathematical language.
9. "What are you asking for? It is a matter of opinion. We think it is oddly stated, you don't. We don't need to provide evidence for an opinion lol." Okay, I understand you. At the same time, however, you could explain why you think the question is oddly stated. Going into that reasoning would certainly not hurt you. It could help you learn how to develop an argument in a better way than you currently do (and it certainly won't hurt your arguing skills if it doesn't help you). Perhaps upon further meditation on the question, you may decide to change your mind. Perhaps you could change someone else's mind by pointing out something that someone else may not have thought of yet. Perhaps you are missing something - maybe you have a gap in your knowledge about the meaning of one of the terms. If this is the case, someone could explain it to you. So while you don't have to support an opinion, true, it could be beneficial to one of the parties involved.
I'm sorry for being so long winded, but I wanted to respond to a lot.
MuffinsAPlenty Thanks for being able to see both sides of the argument. I did not say the question was stated wrong, I just think the question as stated strangely. Like you said, the terminology used here is intended more for mathematicians, not engineers, certainly not most of the people in the crowd.
MuffinsAPlenty I think "Which of these square numbers is also the sum of two smaller square numbers?" is a much better wording for the question. It's not as wordy as the orginal and a little more concise than the original question. "..also happens to be" is not really needed. The answer choice either is or isn't, it doesn't "happen" to be anything. However, I could understand why WWTBAM would word it that way. At first hearing the question could sound a little confusing.
Mathematically, as you were saying, the orignal question is correctly stated, however it sounds too wordy. That's my take on it.
Vahe Hakobyan So... nobody understood why this was intended to be written this way. Indeed the question doesn't lack consistency at all. However, given his situation, the production wanted to rearrange the wording so that it becomes more confusing. In such nerve-cracking situations, this would help to confuse many people. He reacted correctly, asking for the crowd's opinion, in order to calm himself. Nevertheless, he did not take his time, and the crowd was also bamboozed, though in a much more comfortable position and gave him the middle finger (figuratively)
1878EFC2008 You don't know much about America do you? It's the lead developer in the developing world and yet somehow, the laughing stock? Also... unless the school is private, creationism is not taught.
I agree with everything you wrote in your post except perhaps this:
"I can understand why people think the question is worded oddly. Most people don't know much about math and don't care to know much about math, so many people would not be familiar with reading/comprehending the precise language and terminology used in mathematics" and "It is worded strangely in that most people don't have an exposure to the precise language that mathematics uses, and thus, are not prepared to read a question with this caliber of mathematical language."
Worded oddly and using terms that not everyone knows are different things. This is what makes trivia trivia - having to know specific, seemingly obscure things in order to figure out the answer. Even if a "square number" were known as a "Goulashian number," then knowing what a "Goulashian number" is would just be part of the process. Knowing terms and background information is part of trivia and part of what makes it challenging, and it's why not everyone can get them all right.
MuffinsAPlenty MrY3110w Definitely improper wording. You could easily make a case for any of these answers. It's obviously B, but (2√10)^2 + 3^2 = 49, likewise (√(36-pi^2))^2 + pi^2 = 36 also (√(16-e^2))^2 + e^2 = 16 and those are all "smaller square numbers". Its a technicality but still.
Part of the definition of a square number is that the number must be the square of an integer. As such, your examples do not fit the criteria put forth in the question, as all of them use as an addend a number which cannot be written as the square of an integer.
This hearkens back to my point about mathematics using very precise terminology. In this case, "square number" means something different from "square of a number."
Ya I sorta realized that. I personally think it would have been significantly better to say "Perfect Square" even if it is synonymous with "Square Number" purely because the common person, or even some math profs ive had (might be a language issue) doesn't necessarily associate the two terms. Either way, dumb question, easy answer
MuffinsAPlenty Then in that case, if our criteria is that we need to choose two perfect squares with each being less than the result, -4 and 0 satisfy A.
"if our criteria is that we need to choose two perfect squares with each being less than the result, -4 and 0 satisfy A."
First of all, -4 is not a perfect square (or square number) since -4 is not the square of an integer. There is no integer n such that n^2 = -4. Additionally, -4 + 0 = -4, not 16.
If you mean that we can use (-4)^2 + (0)^2 = 16, then this, again, does not satisfy the criteria for the question.
The square number (or perfect square) in question is not -4, but (-4)^2 = 16, and 16 is not smaller than 16.
The question states that the square numbers you are adding together have to be smaller than the sum. The question never mentions the square roots of the square numbers you are adding together (which is the only way that -4 could ever come into play here).
The reason these engineers are saying its worded weirdly is because they've been dealing too much with computers which need extremely precise directions forcing them to get into the habit of wanting extremely precis directions. Doesn't mean their dumb only that if you give vague directions nothing will get done if you give precise directions shit'll get done ;)
No way he couldn't have figured it out if he would have taken his time. Just got flustered and went with the audience without thinking about it. You can figure out what a square number is just by looking at the answers if you don't know. Then just sit there and run through them until tell you get it.
English is not my first language so I interpreted this question completely wrong. I thought that these numbers were results of perfect squares, and that the perfect squares themselves must the the result of perfect squares as well. So I thought 4 x 4 = 16, and 2 x 2 = 4, therefore it's A. Glad I'm not this guy, I'm pretty good at mathematics but I would have looked like a complete fool lmao
0 likes
Dave Lordy2022-11-06 02:51:34 (edited 2022-11-06 02:51:52 )
Even if you didn't recognise the answer straight away (anyone who knows a what 3,4,5 triangle would see it instantly) - surely even someone crap at maths would take a couple of minutes to work it out with some basic adding up !
I think the audience thought that the Square had to itself be made up of squares. 16 being the square of 4 which is a square of 2. But obviously that's from misinterpreting the question as the real answer makes this quite obvious and trivial
Feel for this guy... yes, this isn’t too tough a question at home, but a different story on TV with a live audience and lights etc. I can see how it could be confusing... he did the right think asking the audience and if you are aiming big you can’t then really afford to use all your other lifelines reconfirming what they have told you. He got the question wrong, but not his approach. Hopefully he is luckier in love!
How was asking the audience the right thing? the audience gave the wrong answer, so it was clearly the wrong move. Calling a friend that he knows is good at Math (or at least smart), would have been a better move.
Hell, I didn't know the answer. I was leaning towards 49, why idk. You don't get those questions on a job interview. I consider myself successful for only having a HS diploma, a house (mortgage), a few cars, shit load of tools, go kart, 5 lawnmowers. Just an average steelworker,nothing fancy.
@Isaac Swoyer Yeah, he probably wouldn't be able to pass 9th grade basic algebra!... If it required answering math problems in front of a live audience with a bunch of lights in his face and thousands of dollars on the line.
Most people are not great at math under this much pressure.
@youuuuuuuuuuutube since this show is American, if you speak a different language that isn’t very common in the US then just ask your family what’s 4^2 + 3^2.
I don't feel for him, I don't think he could be arsed to even try to answer it. The answer is in the question, as it tells you all the numbers there were square numbers, so once you know the square numbers are 1,4,9,16,25,... its just a matter of trying different pairs till you find a pair that add up to one of the 4 options.
Puh, took me about 8 minutes to figure out what exactly the question was about. But at least I came up with the right answer at the end. But if I was forced to come up with an answer quickly, it would have been 16 for me, but I certainly would not have felt certain with it.
Technically, it would be all of them. As stated, they are all square numbers, and because zero squared is zero, then the sum of the number on the screen (which is a square number) plus zero (also a square number) equals the number on the screen (still a square number). I know it's not what the person who came up with the question intended, but it's still true.
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
I learned about the pythagorean theorem plenty, but never in this way. That stressed me out a bit. The 3, 4, 5 thing I see in the comments; never heard of it.
Ive Mc Fallen I don't know what fuckin type of geometry you guys are doing But by parts integrals with partial fractions are assrape Then again i am a second year so i don't know much
Well this video is just one cherry-picked example, what percentage of the population even plays this
Also you can learn this not at school
2 likes
Stefan Unson2020-07-04 20:22:15 (edited 2020-07-04 20:22:25 )
It is not just that but Math is the most disliked subject in school while subjective literature, which I hated because I couldn’t understand what a book was talking about, is well-liked.
Dude I haven't had anybody ask me about this stuff In YEARS. I still know and understand what square roots are but It took me a bit to refresh my memory as i was rereading the question. I drop emails into folders on a computer for a living. Square roots don't come up a lot in daily conversations. I'm not ignorant I just haven't had any reason to think about this stuff because I haven't had a practical reason to use it and most of the ways in which I try to educate myself in the present pertain to history and political theory. Don't assume 'ignorance' is always the case.
Although I'm real good at math and I love math riddles, I have to admit that I got this one wrong... It never even crossed my mind that the sum might be of two DIFFERENT square numbers, so I kept counting and couldn't find the right answer... Finally I figured it had to be 16, since neither one of the rest fit at all, whereas 16 could be the sum of multiple 4s. I assumed they asked the question wrong and I didn't even consider that I might've not known the answer... So yeah, I'm pretty good at maths but obviously don't even know the basics LMAO
It's simple - without even knowing the Pythagorean Triple. The squares in order are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, and 49. If you take any smaller square from 16 (eg 9 leaves 7), it doesn't work. Same applies to 36 (25 leaves 11, and 16 leaves 20), and 49 (36 leaves 13, and 25 leaves 24). The key is not overthinking it...
Maybe he thought (-4)^2 + 0^2 = 4^2, with -4,0 < 4. However the question asks for the comparative sizes of the square numbers themselves. In this case, 16 + 0 = 16, and 16 certainly isn't smaller than 16, so it doesn't satisfy the conditions of the questions. The simple example 9 + 16 = 25 is all that was needed
I would have got it wrong too. I thought the question was about the root of 4 and 9 which has 2 and 3. I read the question wrong and would have lost too but for different reasons.
Yes, this question is a lot about terminology. It can be enough that you have forgotten exactly what "square number" refers to in order to get confused, since "square number" is a clue that all numbers are the results of squaring integers.
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
You know off the bat that you are dealing with a number found by adding two smaller numbers. A "square number" is a perfect square, so you need to go through the list of perfect squares up to 49. These include:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
Looking at this set, the only number that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
If you know the Pythagorean theorem, this problem is much easier because the 3-4-5 triangle is one of the most well known triangles in mathematics. Basically, the sides are related because:
3^2 + 4^2 = 5 ^2 9 + 16 = 25
The only difficult part of this question is remembering the basic math concept behind it. If you were not good in math, or if it's been a while, then this question will obviously stump you.
***** I want to believe it was a troll audience too. XD If he just took some time he could have worked it out in his head, but he was too laaaazy. I prolly woulda trolled him too, even though I normally wouldn't. lol
0 likes
f a y e •2022-07-26 21:03:44 (edited 2022-07-26 21:03:51 )
I can forgive him because he was under stress. But the audience embarass me.
A week ago I wrote a program that finds Pythagorean Triples like 3,4,5 just for fun. Yet when I first saw this question, I was like, "Wow! That's a pretty tough question!" and started brute-forcing my way through all the possibilities of answer (A). Until I noticed that 25 was one of the answers. That's how stupid I can be at times. On the plus side, it's positive proof that I'm not a robot.
@tehnoobleader a^2 + b^2 = c^2 when a = m^2 - n^2, b = 2mn, c = m^2 + n^2, where m and n are positive integers, m>n>0, and one of m or n is odd, and m and n are coprime. It's called the Euclidean method. It generates all primitive (non-multiple/mutually prime) pythagorean triples. Your method also gives non-primitive triples, eg. m=3 gives 6, 8, 10, which is 3,4,5 doubled. Thanks for the additional info, I didn't know about your algorithm.
@GeorgeSmiley77 A. Euclids formula* Euclidean method is something completely different. B. Your formula is wrong. There are no parenthesis and m and n are squared independently. This is also only true if m and n are coprime
@up is down No there are only 21 possible results might as well just start with the smallest number and work your way up than try to devise a method. If you were trying to find a way to replicate it quickly and reliably then you might want to devise a method.
Or if there were much larger numbers / larger set of numbers
@Mickey P ik but im saying no math question is designed to be solved by brute forcing through all the possibilities (unless theres only a few) so its more prudent to look for like a pattern, something in the question, and stuff like that first
@up is down brute forcing is actually the better, if you do not have the quick solution and the case is simple like this, it would take just a few two or one digit addition to check everything, so fast and simple, and have the benefit of being mindless, so less chance of making a mistake.
@up is down In this case brute forcing is pretty easy, as long as you bound it properly beforehand: I did the same.
The highest square in the question is 7, so you're only dealing with 6 and below. You can also discount 1, since you know intuitively that none of the squares are within 1 of each other. 5 numbers leaves you with 10 combinations at most, and you get the answer long before that.
It's not necessarily the math that it hard, it's the wording. People get sum confused with product and that's how I ended up with A. The question should have been "what 2 numbers square numbers added together equal to one of these square numbers?"
A lot of people in here try to boost their own egos by mocking people who find math difficult, but they apparently cannot comprehend the following simple facts:
1. It is harder to think clearly when you are under pressure
2. People can forget math concepts; EVERYONE forgets math concepts if they don't regularly work with them
3. Some people suffer from dyscalculia, which makes math a lot harder for them than for other people, even when they get a lot of tutoring
4. Some people have negative experiences with math, and decide that it is pointless for them; you cannot motivate people to learn something if they don't see a value in it
Luke Michalowski "Square number" means the same thing as "perfect square." A square number is defined to be an integer which is the square of an integer.
Congrats to him and to the audience! You may not know math as long as you want, but here you can find the answer by attempts of summing two integers and obtain the result! I'm so stunned watching this!
> Question is revealed Me: 25 > Answer choices are revealed Me: Yeah, that's about as complicated as they could make that on a game show for a general audience.
Pen and pencil to decipher the question. 25=x^+y^ it becomes a lot easier. Imo the question is harder then the answer under this type of in the moment pressure. Just one man’s opinion. Shout out to all you math wizards 🧙♀️ ❤
Pál Krammer2022-11-12 03:36:01 (edited 2022-11-12 03:36:55 )
Even if he doesn’t know the Pythagorean theorem, he can quickly determine the answer. With 16, it’s obvious the only numbers squared to consider are those less than 4 - none of those work. Then 25, consider numbers squared less than 5 - that’s 4 and 3 - that works and no need consider anything further.
This one had me at first, but not for the usual reasons. This is actually kinda devious because it you implicitly assume that the question means that the 2 smaller squares must be the same but they actually don't. 25 = 16 + 9 = 4^2 + 3^2 is the correct answer. 16 and 36 look tempting because your brain wants to think that 8 + 8 = 16 means that 8 is square or that 36 = 18 + 18 means that 18 is square, but neither are.
Same here; it is easy to confuse things and get lost in the jungle of "number" and "square" descriptions if you don't read the question carefully, and remain calm.
It’s 25 because 9 + 16 = 25 which is the same as 3² + 4² = 5². This problem is based on the idea of Pythagorean triples. It can be found by putting integers in the formula a² + b² = c². Another example of Pythagorean triples is 6,8, and 10. 5, 12, and 13 is another Pythagorean triple.
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
m = 3 and n = 1 gives (6,8,10), or alternatively m = 2 and n = 1 above with k = 2, simply doubling the (3,4,5) ; m = 3 and n = 2 (k = 1) gives (5,12,13) etc... infinitely many can be generated this way in seconds
I was amazed especially by the way he didn’t take any time to try and figure it out. And even then, if you’re going to ask the audiance’s help, at least give them some time to figure it out before you ask them...
i lost brain cells because i wasn't sure what the question was asking me. i also thought it was 16 too. turned out i was wrong. its not until meredith viera explained that i kind of got it. then it took me like another 5 to 10 minutes to like nearly completely get it.
@TheShermanTanker Nah, the question was worded fine. "Which square number is also the sum of two smaller square numbers." There are way more complicated worded questions in Mathematics, this pales in comparison.
@Static Chimera no it isnt, "which square number" is redundant because all options are squares. also if you dont know the 3-4-5 fact, and you can only think without a pen, it will be harder.
@lx I don't see how "which square number" is redundant. Yeah all of the options are squares but that's precisely why they said "which square number". If one of the options wasn't a square number then "which square number" wouldn't make any sense since it implies that the only options are square numbers. It's like if the question was worded with "which numbers" instead, it would still be redundant because all of the options are numbers. The argument doesn't really make sense.
Also I recognise that the question is harder if you don't know about Pythagorean triples, but that's not my point. My point is that the question was worded fine. I am biased in thinking how easy the question is though since I study maths, but it's precisely why I study maths that I can say that if you think THIS question is poorly worded, you would not survive in any kind of Maths course.
0 likes
Phil J2022-01-30 00:24:10 (edited 2022-01-30 00:24:36 )
@omp199 Well, there's probably a lot of overlap between people who struggle with this extremely simple math problem and people who also struggle with reading comprehension. It actually makes a lot of sense that we observe this behavior here. YouTube comments also attract lower IQ individuals.
The question almost got me, and I majored in math. I thought the question was "which of these numbers have a square root that is also a squared number" or something to that effect. 16 is a reasonably wrong guess since it's the only number here which fits that description. I think we use "squared" number instead of "square" number so I immediately thought they were referring to the square root when they said "square number". Could just be a language difference though since English isn't our first language.
47 likes
Replies (20)
T. D.2021-10-18 18:48:59 (edited 2021-10-18 18:49:10 )
Same. I have a Masters degree in mathematics, and this almost got me because I read the question in such a lazy manner.
English is not my mother language and I still cannot understand how this question can be misunderstood. I've read many claims for how it's "worded poorly" and don't relate to any of them.
@AboodXD dude you’re just smarter than everyone else sorry, how can we compete with pure genius like you. Please, have pity for us poor mortals, oh great one.
@Tretch He's right, the question is crystal clear, I didn't realize at first that you could relate this to the 3-4-5 triangle, so it took me a while to figure out the answer, but the question leaves no room for mistaken interpretations.
@AboodXD It isn't poorly worded, however the definition of a square number is different in other countries, and I believe that's what's causing issues.
@BuxOfficial that changes nothing as all shown numbers are so-called "natural" square numbers, which should let you deduce what kind of square numbers they are talking about.
@AboodXD Hi! Just wanted to let you know that people can misconstrue this question due to being pressured or distracted. That includes this magna graduate with a 1.25 in Geometry who watched the video while brushing her hair. The question may not have been worded poorly, but it can still confuse someone under the right (or wrong) circumstances. In the contestant's case, it just had to be a timed game show. 😅
lol im dumb as shit and i still got it in like 3 seconds 3-4-5 is like the most basic shit ever and i knew the question was going that way just when i finished reading it
It´s one of the most fundamental things in math and the question is as basic as it gets (it´s pure and simple in mathematical form). Hard to understand that someone who majored in math cannot get the question. It´s like saying "I am a mechanic, but can you please tell me what a car is?"
@BuxOfficial No, the definition of a square number is the same in EVERY country. In French, a square number is n² where n is an integer, but that´s also the definition in the US (do not get mistaken from the posts here where idiots say that 2,5²=6,25 is a square number because it´s not). The terminology might be different since different countries have different languages obviously, but the definition is the same all over the world. Imagine this would not be the case. Then maths would not work.
It is beyond me how can anyone fail at this. Even if you don't remember the well known (3,4,5) Pythagorean triple, you can simply check all options. He didn't even try to compute some small squares and add them. Don't know what the host was sorry for. Not her fault that the guy and the audience can't compute something any 8 years old should be able to compute.
The issue isn’t math. It’s actually misunderstanding what the question is asking. There is a reason 50% of the audience chose A. That wasn’t random.
I also got it wrong and had a face palm moment.
I thought it was asking which which of these squared numbers also happens to be the square of another number.
If I hadn’t just assumed that, and written it down, I would have realized I was wrong.
The question was actually asking x^2 + y^2 = Z (the sum of two squared numbers)
I think if they had phrased the question a little differently, more people would have gotten it. But, there is nothing wrong with the question. It’s fair. It reminds me of the axiom: “read the freaking question.”
Everyone gets stuff wrong. That doesn’t make you stupid. You are only stupid if you refuse to learn from your mistakes.
Ok so like thinking about it for literally 10 seconds tells you it can't be 16. The only squares before 16 are 4 and 9 which sum to 13. He was under a lot of pressure though.
So: the simplest example of a right-angled triangle when they teach you about sine / cosine / tangent and right-angled triangles in maths. As soon as I started trying to find two that worked, “square of the hypotenuse” popped into my head when 16 and 9 worked for 25.
he's not alone not knowing the table of multiplication, 70% of the audience and even worst on AOL have given a wrong answer ! the question is why this guy were chosen to participate in the game????
I don't think this is a "can't do math" issue. It's more of a "don't comprehend the question" issue. I thought the answer was 16 as well. In fact, I was dead certain it was 16. The problem was I completely misunderstood the question.
Of all the answers there, 16 is the only one that the square root of is also square, which is what I thought it was asking for some reason. Even though 4 + 4 != 16, I simply eliminated the other three answers because 5, 6 and 7 aren't square. It didn't even occur to me that they would be the sum of two different numbers.
If it wasn't a word problem (or if it was worded more mathematically), I'd probably have put my thought process in a more correct space. For instance if it read: "If x + y = z, where x, y and z are all square numbers and x and y are both less than z, which of the following could be z?"
They wouldn't ever word it that way, but that's how I would understand it better.
Comprehending questions IS a quintessential part of "doing math".
Just like understanding the positions on the chessboard finding the right moves IS crucial for playing chess (well), or like correctly identifying symptoms of a disease IS a quintessential part of practicing medicine, etc.
These are not two separate abilities as you imply. Interpretting problems is a fundamental skill here.
If you're misunderstanding abstract concepts and statements to begin with, then how on earth could you take it one step further and competently reason about them (which is what math is) : )
@vibovitold You are forgetting that the guy in this video had to answer this question under a lot of psychological pressure in the middle of a game show, and thus was much more likely to get brain fog than people who sit in the comfort of their own homes with unlimited time to answer it.
The moment I saw the question I was thinking Pythagorean’s Theorem, which is almost always taut using 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. I’m at a total loss as to why the audience got it wrong.
Stephanie R when you take high school geometry, the instructor uses it as a classic example of Pythagorean’s Theorem, because of the simplicity of the numbers.
I'm from the U.S. and I got it right. Heck, I'm from Florida and i got it right, and our education system is even worse than most of the rest of the country's. Mostly I'm just wondering what logic had most people guessing "16."
I'm terrible at math too..so I understand his situation but the audience!! How can this many people be wrong? Well..I guess being in a South Asian country I can depend on the audience for math questions despite not being strong at math myself. But still shocked to see them wrong!
@we dem boyz No.. given the question, 7 24 25 doesn't count, because it says the sum of smaller *square number*.. does 7 and 24 a square number? No! it's should be 9 and 16..
@Rish then acc. to your logic.. It should hv been 0^2 + 1^2 = 1 and that was obliviously not in the option so the question would hv been wrong to start with! Show some smartness bro!
@Kaelum They got it wrong most likely because they didn't understand the question. Most likely they thought the question asked which square was composed of smaller squares. This would incline them to think 16 because 4*4 and 4 is composed of 2*2. They confused what a square is versus what a square root is.
@SkillUp Gaming You dumb piece of fecal matter. He was saying that the audience got it wrong because they omitted the "sum" part out of the word problem. If you was to think of it like that then yes the answer would have been 16. The main issue here is the amount of people who problem for get that sum means addition. Honestly the question is worded extremely shitty.
I got this answer within probably half a second once the choices were revealed and somehow a large majority of the audience in both polls got it wrong. I don't claim to be a math whiz by any stretch though I'm decent at it, being an engineer and all, but it blows my mind that something that came so instantly for me, a majority of the people in the audience got completely wrong. 😆
If you're reading too quickly, you might fall for the trap and go with the square number that's the product of a squared number (2^2)^2 = 16. As long as you aren't too nervous and can concentrate enough to see it's about the sum and understanding the question appropriately, it's a pretty easy question as long as you know what a square number is. The thought process could be as simple as "2 squared is 4, 3 squared is 9, 4 squared is 16... oh it's B.. 25 because 16 +9 = 25"
I don’t blame him, I misunderstood the question at first too. I was thinking of which one was the the square of it’s squares (if that makes sense). I thought it was 16, like 2 squared is 4, and 4 squared is 16. I got it once she explained the solution but I can only imagine what he was thinking plus the stress of $15k and being on tv
You got the question wrong from the "square of it's squares" hence you got 2 squared then squared again
It was actually "which square is the sum of smaller squares" which can be answered if you just list up all square numbers less than 49(biggest in the choices so no need to think something bigger than this) which would be : 4, 9, 16, 25, 36
Now you just need to add 2 out of this, and look for any results that also shows in the choices
yeah, everyone is blaming the audience's incompetency at math, but I'm so so sure most of them are just bad at reading the question properly before choosing.
@John Smith No it actually wasn't that explicit. You could technically make sense of it either way. It's a game show. It's meant to trip people up, especially under pressure.
@Tsrenis all you need to know is that squaring a number means multiplying it by itself, unless you don't know how to multiply (that's the only time you'll need to memorize)
@Tsrenis As long as you know that a square is when a number is multiplied by itself, you don't need to "memorize square numbers". As long as you know that one very basic thing, it wouldn't be too hard to just brute force this going down the list of smallest square numbers like 1*1, 2*2, 3*3, 4*4, 5*5. Just by doing those 5 easy multiplications you'd realize that 9, 16 and 25 are all square numbers and since 9+16=25, that 25 is the correct answer.
The question clearly said sum. It was pretty explicit. The only thing that was potentially misleading is whether or not the two numbers were identical or not, and then you realize they had to be two different numbers when you work it out.
I think if he knew what the question meant it would have been easy for him. I suppose its meaning didn't jump right out at him and then anxiety took over so he just went with the audience. Sometimes the problem isn't figuring out the math itself but in poor comprehension of what's being asked. Or average even since the bloody audience let him down! 🤦🏼♀️
@ElvenIvy07 I think this event shows that a large chunk of the general public does not know that "sum" has a precise definition... meaning the result of "addition". I agree with those who say this question is 100% clear. If it's not clear to an individual person that "sum" means "addition", that's not a problem with the question.
@Sarah English isn’t my first language and I can state with 100% confidence that the question was very explicit. I can also state with 90% confidence that you have the literacy of a 6th grader and the math skills of a 4th grader.
He didn't talk out any reasoning or ever say which way he was leaning (assuming this wasn't edited out). I am convinced he probably didn't know what a square number is, and that much of the audience didn't either.
@Sarah It's even sadder when these kinds of questions pop up in important exams. I'm not from the US, so I wouldn't say I'm the most fluent. But even so, I've seen countless memes of English tests disguised as math questions.
@James Svacha No, it actually really wasn't. It's not about simply knowing those things, it's about being clear with what they're asking. Again, it's designed to trip people up under pressure. If you're not under pressure and you're asked the question, you would see it more clearly for what it is. I'm just so sick of shaming people, especially when it comes to math. It creates an unwelcoming atmosphere that doesn't allow people to explore why they might have got something wrong and to try again. That's exactly what this video is trying to do. And you're one of the people reinforcing its message.
@James Svacha the way people think of square numbers is the number multiplied by itself. So they're going to get fixated on the definition of a squared number without realizing that oh yeah, I can mix and match those smaller square numbers (16 + 9) to come up with an appropriate sum (25). Again, as I said before, it's meant to trip people up and I think OP did a good of explaining how they got it mixed up and someone else explained the solution in an actual helpful way instead of just saying "it's pretty explicit" like you. Like cool, you added literally nothing to the conversation.
The question is phrased a bit weirdly, I also thought it was 16, cuz I thought at first it meant like, the root of 16 is 4, the root of which is 2, so 2 square numbers…
This is simple 7th grade math. There is something seriously wrong with these people if children in middle school have the intellectual ability to answer this question. The question is asking about a pythagorean triple. I’m an American and I’ll admit that the majority of the American population is retarded. Yet, they complain about foreigners stealing their jobs. The reason being is that we’re not even a top 20 education system in the world. Thus, most Americans just complain while doing nothing to change this problem except for voting in other idiots like Trump.
NYGiantsFan7198 the current nationally ranked education overall has nothing to do with the national economy. Its more related to the consequences of EOI and the politics of the international economy
NishC300 , Because usa prints money.So it doesn't matter how much they print.If gold was the reserve currency instead of usa,you beautiful country would look worse than poo.
NishC300 Ask yourself, would you rather stay in your home country with people as smart if not better or just simply go to the land of idiots and take their job
NishC300 you know one thing, average people being dumb doesn't mean that intelligent people are not in the US. Competition is very low in US. Anybody can earn something doing part time. Many countries don't have this luxury so the people have to work hard, study Maths and Science and hence this was so easy. Average American people bcz of so less competitive nature don't do any study and hence this dumb
If you talking about tech jobs, obviously the audience doesn't work in tech so your comparison is irrelevant; if you talking about farm jobs why would math knowledge even matter?
first i was surprised as to how could a nation be so dumb enough to elect the fat orange trump into the white house. But after seeing the IQ level of the audience here, im honestly not that surprised anymore...
Because they keep indulging in entertainment and prolonged adolescence that they refuse to grow up and aim at betterment. As a result, the foreigners keep taking those available jobs.
According to the logic of some people in here, we might as well say that anyone who doesn't know the name of the 30th element in the periodic table must also "suck at chemistry"; seriously, that would be pretty much the same kind of logic.
5^2 is already gonna equal 25 so the sums of square numbers can't be greater than 5. 1 doesn't amount to shit and 2 doesn't add up so your only options are (3^2=9) + (4^2=16) or (0^2=0) + (5^2=25).
It's been almost a decade since I graduated from the school system and the fact the audience can't remember something I was taught in the 4th grade is just sad. Like I'm sure people probably don't use it in their everyday lives but c'mon. At least try to retain something.
And then they have the audacity to clap afterwards ☠️
I’m doing my major in math and honestly it took me like half a second to answer that ques bcuz the 3-4-5 triangle is like the most used thing in any math course lol
Eshita Goel I usually find trouble understanding questions, so I'm not by any means a smart person, but I knew the answer for this question in half a second as well.
It's weird that people found trouble understanding this question, although after contemplating, it does seem like a stupid question.
@Vince It's a Pythagorean triple. Basically, Pythagoras's theorem stuff. If a right-angled triangle has the two smaller sides as length 3 and 4, the hypotenuse is always 5. That's because of Pythagoras's theorem, which is c^2 = a^2 + b^2, which is literally what the question in the video is asking, which square number (c^2) is the sum of two smaller square numbers (a^2 + b^2). If you don't know what Pythagoras's theorem is, I suggest looking it up, as explaining it here would be a bit too long.
@Charles Petrizzi bruh what is your point? I never said i didnt know these, i only said what i do know. maybe you should be ashamed of the way you talk to people :)
@Mohammed Haris And yet there's only one Indian I can think of who's ever done anything significant in mathematics/science. Let me guess, people from other countries robbed their ideas. right? 🤦♂️
Here is another question kind of along the same lines: Which of the following integers is both the cube of an integer AND the sum of two distinct squares of integers? A: 8 B: 36 C: 27 D: 64
Here’s an explanation of square numbers for anyone who got this wrong: A square number is a number that is the result of another number times itself(AKA a number squared, AKA a number raised to the power of 2). 4*4=16, so 16 is a square number and 4 is what is known as the “square root” of 16. 3*3=9, so 9 is a square number, 3 is the square root. 16+9=25. 25 is the result of 5*5. 1 is an interesting number because it is both the square and square root of itself. Numbers like 1, 9, 16 and 25 are also known as “perfect squares” because their square roots are whole numbers with no decimals. Basically meaning every number has a square root, but only certain ones are “perfect” like those mentioned. The perfect-squares are simply referred to as square numbers and vice versa. This is pretty basic math to be real with you, if you’re not a young kid you should definitely know this kind of stuff; it will broaden your horizons. Hopefully it makes sense now, and you can see how simple the logic behind it is.
My reason for it was because of the phrasing i admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 and also . The show sometimes itself flips product and sum around too so all the other people saying but that is a product dont get that you cant gurrsntee it will be phrased like that on the show. Others also point out that 4+4 = 8 and 8 +8 equals 16 so it seems in some sense the phrasing of the question and ironically peoples math skills themselves likely increased the questions difficulty. This is i think a problem in math classes too tbh. People who are good at analytical math can have difficulty in applied mathmatics due to teacher inserting information or over rounding or other aspects that affect their accuracy and the student who are better at math ironicslly may be more likely to not pass those classes more due to ironically taking in the information that was given to them too
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
legit america might be the only country where the audience would get this wrong. The audience is usually pretty on point and this is ultimately such a simple question that it should be a lay up for the audience to majority get it right.
Even as a math teacher, this question can be very difficult in this situation.
It's very hard to remain calm and think properly under stress. Also, the wording of the problem makes it somewhat challenging to interpret properly.
With all of this going on, now you have to mentally run through your perfect squares (1,4,9,16,25,36,...), keep track of them, and find two of them that you can add together to get one of the answers. Extremely difficult under pressure for most people!
Even with the wrong answer "that i had got myself" and the right answer in front of me... i still had no idea till i read your post how to get the correct answer. Everyones so high and mighty about this one.. question is worded to mess people up
it's not that difficult. all you have to think about are the ones that are smaller than the original value. for example, 5^2 is 25, so the sum cannot be bigger than 5^2, eg. 5^2+4^2 or 5^2+6^2... you can do that by deduction, testing it on 16, 49, 36 and so on
Yeah but there's no time limit. It'd be hard to do in 5 seconds under stress but you can literally take all the time in the world to count it out. Not only could you get the right answer, you could spend an hour double-triple checking and showing all the other answers are wrong too. Dude literally has no idea what a "square number" is.
@ND_IRISH_FAN That is the proper reaction to this video - it's just too bad that a lot of people seem to take delight in mocking other people instead, and look for any chance to do that.
They’re all small numbers. Just start with 1, subtract it out from the four choices, and test to see if the residual is a perfect square (ie 1 + 15, 1 + 48, 1 + 35, 1+24). Repeat test consecutively until both numbers you’re adding are perfect squares. And that’s your answer
You must be a very lousy math teacher then. Like my 5th grade math teacher that asked me to figure out the first 20 digits of pi by dividing 22 divided by 7 via long division and then was surprised when her 10 year old student had to give her a lesson on what rational numbers were.
@ultimate cheese whopper The wording was kinda tough or maybe it's because you keep thinking of squares and such so you keep asking yourself which 2 SAME numbers can be added in order to get that number , idk what made me think that way but just putting the word perfect square in the first requirement probably made me lean that way
@VojvodaVuk Because I feel like not mentioning that they're 2 different numbers makes you lean towards looking for the summation of 2 similar numbers, just because it's kinda the thing you start thinking about after looking for a perfect square you keep thinking you need similar numbers.. maybe it's just me but yea the entire audience knows how to sum they just thought of 1)its a perfect square, so 16 works 2)8+8 are similar and gives 16 And probably missed smaller in their rush for looking for similar numbers that add up to it
@VojvodaVuk But then again I'm not a native English speaker, still I feel like the problem was just the wording not the problem itself as we would solve it easily if it added "different"
@Juska first of all, 3, 4,5 triangle is like the first thing you learn in school when learning Pythagoras. When I read first 3 words I knew exectly what question is going to be. Second, same integer cannot be squared , summed and then equal to another integer sqare.
@VojvodaVuk Didn't you read it all? When I said same I didn't mean the same number from the first requirement, again I meant this answer: 16 1)Perfect square of 4² ✔️ 2)The summation of 2 similar numbers gives 16 (8+8) ✔️
Also the 345 thing isn't really the issue here because if you're looking for something entirely different because you though you need 2 similar numbers then it wouldn't matter
@VojvodaVuk And the question doesn't require it, but when you read it in a hurry you're more likely to think so due to the word perfect square before it, making you lean towards it, unless specified otherwise or taking some time you could very well think it's just a number that 1)is a perfect square 2)can be taken from the addition of 2 of the same number
That's why the majority voted 16, it's not by luck, but by suggestion
You know mental suggestions? Like that little trick when they say a few things then ask you quickly for a Vegetable starting with letter A and you say apple like a dummy?
@Juska you keep using similar and its wrong. 8 and 8 are not similar, they are the same. Still the question doesnt say same numbers, but only smaller numbers. And still it says sum of smaller square numbers. 8 is not perfect square.
@VojvodaVuk I meant same not similar, it's said as similar because "smaller" is there and that's where people get confused and read wrong, get it? Also 8 isn't a perfect square we know that, it's not a requirement for the 2 numbers you add up to 16 to be a perfect square themselves, the answer is 16 the explaination is 4² and 8+8 (8 doesn't need to be a perfect square, 16 does, in our wrong perception of the question, get it?)
@VojvodaVuk And yea isn't the audience supposed to answer it quickly before they just put up their answers? They can't possibly wait for everyone, plus wrong perception is often just a hit or miss, you don't go back to reread if you already think you got it all right
@VojvodaVuk for a way shorter explaination I basically thought this:
A perfect square that is also taken from the sum of 2 similar(smaller) numbers
Solve this, see what I meant? If u read it smaller you get 25 (25 is a perfect square of 5 and can be added from 9+16), if you read similar, you get 16 (16 is a perfect square of 4 and can be taken from 8+8, did it say the numbers have to be perfect squares too? If so I didn't notice that's why my requirements always were 2 only).
@VojvodaVuk oh yea it says from square numbers, welp, attention lacking but still reading smaller as similar makes you lean to the 16, cuz it makes you exclude the odd numbers already since it's not often allowed to use decimalized numbers so odd ones would be out
@Juska I know how you interpreted the question. I just want to explain why it is stupid to think like that. First of all, watch the video. It says sum of two smaller perfect perfect squares. And even if it didnt say that and it was what you thought, why would answers be perfect squares. It could have been: Which of these numbers is a sum of 2 similar numbers? And answers: 16 and 3 odd numbers. But you need to agree that how you interpreted is kindergarden level question.
@VojvodaVuk eh people don't necessarily solve every question from start without being asked to but even so reading it, but that doesn't change the main concept that the problem the encountered is English reading similar instead of smaller and so excluding odd numbers already
@VojvodaVuk it's not interpretion but a reading problem, similar and smaller are 2 words that are well similar lmao, the question is in any case a kindergarten problem, just depends on what you saw, since the two words are alike, but one is more likely to be seen, by mental suggestion, that's why the audience majority said 16 specifically as the mental suggestion worked on them
Difficult my ass 😂 you have 6 numbers to run through and try to add up. It also helps that it’s 3*3 + 4*4, so they are consecutive. You should get it on the first few tries.
@VojvodaVuk Oh I thought no one really would listen if its a math problem because it's often better to read and write with maths, but I guess some do And the "similar or same" issue are by all means English/wording related we know that 8 is same as 8 but we could also say similar as we aren't often accurate with wording, much like the people who use "literally" all the time, to many people words like similar and same are interchangeable even if grammatically they are not and it would be imperfect wording, by all means it's exactly what I'm saying, the problem you're stating here is our English more than our math
If it was a math problem you would ask them the requirements separately and they'd answer wrong
@Juska First of all, if you are going to be a crowd in a quiz show, I highly doubt you went there to play with your phone. From the time this guy asks for crowd to vote, about 10-15 second passes. That is not enough time for any question to be read, along with all answers and then answer it. So if you are there and you are not paying attention, what are you doing then?
I have yet to see an english person confuse same and similar. Contrary to your belief, if they read similar instead of smaller they would still pick squares of 2 and 3 because they can say that 2 and 3 are similar because there is only 1 difference.
This has nothing to do with grammar, saying "Literally" is grammatically correct. The word you meant to use is semantically. Using "similar" when you mean "same" is a semantical error, not grammatical.
You say that under the delusion of math teachers being competent at math. Unless you are a college professor. But I have outright contempt for K-12 math teachers, my 5th grade teacher having asked me to calculate the first 20 digits of pi by using long division to calculate 22 divided by 7. Yes that actually happened, no she was not joking, she thought pi was EQUAL to 22 over 7.
I only take interest in math topics as a casual amateur and I instantly remembered without calculating that 25 is the smallest square that is the sum of two squares. Ignorance is lack of care to know stuff.
@Ayush Mishra well I didn't say it's their fault perse, I was saying it's the English/wording/reading comprehension that's making people do this mistake rather than math, because the math required is just knowing simple stuff that I knew, but I already excluded the correct answer due to reading similar instead of smaller, And then I elaborate that it reminds me of mental suggestions, maybe it wasn't one but still the entire problem here was reading not math
@Juska most people don't know the actual definition of square number and that's the problem. Some mess up with the SMALLER part and a few the sum part.
@Juska "just what happened with me" - Look, this is the problem with your argumentation. People here keep telling you that it's not a phrasing issue. With all due respect, just because you didn't understand the question doesn't mean that others didn't understand it either. Nobody except you confused smaller with similar.
The wording of this question was unambiguous and not linguistically challenging. The problem is that too many folks have no clue when it comes to math, or at least mathematical terminology if we want to be charitable.
True...but for $15,000 do the damn mental math. LOL...If this was timed, OK...but he had all the time in the world. The numbers were low enough (16, 25, 36, and 49) to do that math in your head. I don't think this guy knew what a "square" was. He seemed completely clueless.
@Mychael Smith It's not bad. The problem is that most people learn math in school and then put 90% of it away and quickly forget it. Like the definition of "square number." It has something to do with square roots, one might guess, but beyond that most Americans don't know and can't just Google the term during a quiz show like we can. And for those who do use math enough to know this term off hand, try answering a question of like difficulty that depends on knowing the definition of some literary term pertaining to poetry.
Do you know what a perfect square is? n*n. So start at 1x1=1, 2x2=4, 3x3=9, 4x4=16, 5x5=25. Now just decompose the numbers of each answer. Can't be 16, 36, or 49. But 25=16+9, Bingo. Final Answer.
@Jens Raab I didn't say it's for sure this I'm just saying if I read something that looks very close to the word that was written, maybe others did too, is that really a further stretch than not passing 1st grade? I don't even have an argument I'm just giving input as to why I was one of the people that got it wrong, and similar vs smaller are honestly alike so its possible, but not everyone has to be the same, they'd have to put their input too, for all we know it could be because my first language isn't even English but it just reminds me of an old trick with mental suggestions too so idk I thought maybe that's why I read it wrong and was giving some input thats all
@Juska Frankly, yes, that would be a stretch, and I'm fairly certain it is because English isn't your first language. I'd bet a lot of money that not 50% of the audience misread this, especially as the term "similar number" doesn't have a meaning in math as has been pointed out to you several times. Also, the host read the question!
I'm good at math but from experience I know that many people are not. A shockingly high number of people are not. I've worked in a financial institution for a while and there was a scenario where our department and another department had to both greenlight certain transactions before they were initiated. There was a threshold, measured in percentage, beyond which we would want to initiate these transactions for our client. The problem was that our department said, the threshold is this amount plus x% but the other department had the upper threshold as baseline and subtracted that percentage. Anyway, I tried to explain my new line manager that there are situations, not very frequent but they occurred more than once while I was there, that the transaction would be triggered even though it shouldn't have been, or not triggered even though it should. The issue if you add a certain percentage to a value, and then you subtract the same percentage from the new value, the amount is not the same than the one you started from. For example, you add 1% to $100, that gives you $101. If you now subtract 1% from this new amount, i.e. $1.01, you'll end up with $99.99. The higher the percentage, the more striking the discrepancy. We operated with buffer percentage of 5%. So, I was trying to explain this, I even made a graph which showed the areas (amounts) in which that discrepancy caused by the different approach of our departments would result in an unwanted action. This line manager, younger than me, fresher out of school, didn't get it. She talked to me in a condescending way in a manner that showed that she had no clue what I was talking about, just trying to get rid of me.
Then, a couple of weeks later, a trainee who, like me (and unlike her), had been to university joined us for a while and I chatted with him and mentioned this issue. He understood immediately. Like I said, I was shocked that you had folks in a finance institute where we moved funds worth dozens of millions, sometimes well beyond 100 million dollars, would not understand basic percentage calculation. So given that, I absolutely believe that an audience in a quiz show would be mathematically illiterate rather than conflate two very simple words of their native language with very different meaning.
@Jens Raab ah, I guess past experiences shape what we believe is more likely to happen, you remembered that while I remembered reading errors, attention deficiency and a past mental suggestion trick, welp.. I find it more believable that they don't know how to do simple stuff now that you mention your experiences
@Juska The thing is, this is only one of maaaany times that I noticed that people are not on too solid mathematical ground. And usually, they will readily admit that math isn't their thing. Which is fine. There are loads of areas where I am crap and others are much better. I just related this anecdote because I found it especially shocking, and I think if this occurs in financial institution, just imagine how the situation must be when numbers aren't that important. Frankly, I don't even fault the audience. I wrote a comment under this video saying that "Ryan's biggest mistake was to ask the audience for a math question". I wouldn't trust a random audience with math questions at all (based on my experiences). Of course, since Ryan also didn't have a clue he did what appeared to be reasonable, trusting the majority. The better approach would have been to use other lifelines.
This. People really underestimate just how much pressure can mess you up. The question itself was pretty trivial, but I'm pretty sure I've messed up even easier ones before under bad circumstances. No, the ones who really should have done better here was the audience.
It's the wording that hung me up. Wasn't exactly clear what it was asking for, so couldn't create the formula. Once the formula was presented though, it became simple. And yes, I was never great at English, the whole sentence structure stuff never made sense in theory, though it did in practice.
@Mychael Smith The reason I referenced the wording is that many people have learned the term "perfect squares" as opposed to square numbers. If the question would have been worded perfect square numbers, it may have led him in the right direction while he was stressing out.
@VojvodaVuk Very had to believe that someone with a PhD refers to "Maths" and doesn't even know to capitalize the word English within its proper context.
@ND_IRISH_FAN First of all, what a stupid stereotype. Because I have a PhD I always have to speak like I am Queen of England? What else, can I go to the gym, sir? Because you know I am a nerd with a PhD and I should not go and work out? Second, I really don't care how I capitalize words, I have PhD in Maths not in grammar. And you assume that I am an english speaker, why would I have to know all the rules. I know people with PhDs in many other fields who cant speak english. Shows that you are probably not a teacher because you would have respect for those who pursue the field you work in.
@AcidPants Which square number (among A,B,C,D) is the sum of two smaller square numbers? What is so difficult about the wording. It´s whyt teachers ask in 3rd grade.
In Finland, this life line works very differently: all audience members who think they know the right answer stand up, and the consestant picks three of them.
I almost had a stroke because I thought the question was asking which of the square numbers from there was also a sum of 2 other square numbers FROM THE 4 OPTIONS
+waawamellon But what if any of the answers wasn't 25 but instead, say 169, 289, 625 or 1681? At that point you whould have looked a bit silly. =) If you meant that you whould have answered before hearing all the 4 choices I totally agree with you that it would have been nice.
gurkfisk89 25 would more likely be common knowledge and so it's more likely to be a choice than any of those higher ones, but yeah I don't remember if I meant 'before hearing all four' or 'before hearing any'
The problem is easy, very easy, the wording is complex, which is probably why question is for $16,000. They must have picked all sorts of dropouts and handed them the devices. Meredith was a great host.
@Xinping Donohoe Every single American is bad at math huh. Nice generalization. Maybe thats why we have 6 out of the 10 best schools in the entire world for mathematics ;)
@Antares1997 I'm just glad you didn't say 10 out of 6. My point is that, on average, Americans seem to be rather fatter and stupider than other Western nations.
@Antares1997 You seem to be pretty naive. First of all, the assumption that Americans are dumb is obviously not true for Harvard or Princeton students. Just like not every Trump voter is an idiot, but most of them. And 2nd, most of the top universities are top because of foreign personnel. Americans with a degree are in the bottom 10%, so yes, even among graduates, they are pretty bad.
I’m from south asia and this wording is not even complex like how can a native find such wordings harder than us lmao. Although, I would agree about the music being too intense and pressuring. This man sure became anxious, no wonder he thought the majority of audience was correct.
@pixa1z yeah lmao imagine knowing English and still cannot understand what I, a non-English guy seem to think is a pretty clearly worded question. If you cant read these types of wording maybe math isn't for you since math always is to the point
@Xinping Donohoe The numbers themselves do not matter since we don't need such information to find out the answer. The wording is unnecessarily complicated.
@Mokshit Sati Yep, my mistake. As Jimmy Neutron said, I need to add the word "smaller", which corrects my sentence to: "Which of these numbers is the sum of two smaller squared numbers?"
@Shintei but the point of the question is to find a square that is the sum of two squares. If you remove that the number is square then you've removed half of the gimmick. Without that sight gimmick it's simply a too easy question.
@Shintei yet the gimmick is, as I said, that they are square numbers that make another square number. In fact, it's actually easier the normal way because, assuming they received an education, they should have heard about Pythagoras' theorem. If they don't think anything along the lines of a²+b²=c² and remember the most classic of classic triangles, the 3-4-5 triangle, then they weren't going to get it.
@Xinping Donohoe I doubt Pythagoras' theorem or the triangle is necessary here. All I did was just squaring the numbers and add them together. Though, I must admit it that I have taken way longer to understand the question than calculating it.
@Shintei If you remove the part about the answer being itself a square from the question, you take out a huge hint that screams "Pythagora's theorem" at you. Moreover, the player would have probably started thinking at random sums of squares like 8 or 13 that are not squares themselves. I find this question to be correctly worded and crystal clear, but english isn't my first language.
@ε Choosing random number to start with isn't really a "mathematical or logical" approach. If I remember correctly, it took about 10 calculations to get the answer, and that 8 and 13 are also within one of the calculations. So, it is okay if someone considers 8 or 13. I suppose the hint is the host said the player can take his time, which indicates this question can take time to calculate different combinations. Yes, the question is correctly worded. The problem is that there are better ways to word it so most people, if not all, will find it crystal clear instead of only some people.
Maybe it's just me who finds the wording weird, but my background isn't in arts/literature. My background is physics, electronic engineering and computer science. This probably explained why I couldn't understand the question at the start.
@Shintei Choosing simple examples to start with isn't really a "mathematical or logical" approach? Really? It's the most common first approach in math at any level, from elementary to research.
Well I actually would have gotten this one right and I don't consider math my strong suite so yay. I think the mistake the audience made was in thinking (2x2)x(2x2) when it would instead be (2x2)+(2x2).
This video explains America in the shortest and easiest manner! I bet his answer would have been quicker and correct without lifeline had it been about guns! :D
2 likes
Jordan Hendrix2022-12-28 01:24:49 (edited 2022-12-28 01:27:14 )
25. 16 plus 9.
Edit: oh crap, they explain it at the end, I thought I was helping people out 😂
The square numbers are: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49 something + something = 25 The two numbers must be a square number and below 25, so the only options you have got is 1, 4, 9, and 16. 16 + 9 = 25
No because it’s the same question. When taking a test, pressure doesn’t make you forget, your lack of knowledge does. This was an extremely simple question that anyone who went to 8th grade could answer. And there was not even time pressure. How did this guy pass any math class? This guy is dumb.
take into account the time, its not like he have all the time in the world to think properly.
2 likes
Phil J2022-01-30 00:07:57 (edited 2022-01-30 00:08:33 )
Maybe, but the average person really is this stupid. Just look at the polls that all slanted towards A. Pretty good sample size of there that illustrates the idiocy of people.
I doubt it, he couldn't even give a logical (if not flawed) reason for going with 16, except for that's what the audience thought. You're meant to take a little time a ponder the questions, its almost as if he was unable to read, or just couldn't be arsed doing a math question.
Bro this question was kinda silly you need to probably implicitly differentiate that problem to solve for 25=(A^2)+(B^2) I don't blame him for getting it wrong even though it is pretty straight forward
Holy shit, and those weren't children voting either. Those were genuine adults that have sat through hours of math lessons only to come out the other side just as thick as they came in. Jesus America...
This question is basically asking for the square of one of three numbers in a Pythagorean triplet. A Pythagorean triplet is a set of numbers a, b, and c such that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. However, the answer is limited to being a square number (i.e. perfect square) where a, b, and c must be integers.
The first ten whole number Pythagorean triplets are:
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
m = 3 and n = 1 gives (6,8,10), or alternatively m = 2 and n = 1 above with k = 2, simply doubling the (3,4,5) ; m = 3 and n = 2 (k = 1) gives (5,12,13) etc... infinitely many can be generated this way in seconds
I said 16 at first because i thought 2x2 = 4 and then 4x4 = 16. After i noticed the "sum" of two smaller and realized, ix di. Didnt understand question, specially because is in englishg not my main language. I am tard too :P
As some who is a math major, and has performed on stage, yall shouldn't make fun of this guy. If you don't already know the answer, this is a pretty difficult question to do on stage. There's a lot of pressure and that can prevent you from doing your best. You have 2+3+4+5+6+7=27 different possible equations that aren't easy to do in your head. It isn't obvious that 25 is the answer don't clown my man for not knowing arbitrary facts about numbers.
Yeah, I use the Pythagorean Theorem all the time in university courses, and I still found this question a bit weird - it would have been better if they asked "which of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers?".
Another more precise possible version of this question could be "which of these numbers has a square root that is a possible hypotenuse for a right triangle, where both of the legs are themselves distinct whole numbers?".
Somewhat lengthy, I guess, but it makes a lot of sense to people who are familiar with trigonometry.
It’s Pythagorean Theorem. Not only that, it’s the most basic beginner level Pythagorean math equation. Three squared plus four squared equals five squared
When I was trying to understand this question I realised that it is wrong . I am from Poland and over here we hardly ever us this " square number " term but from what I gathered a square number is an integer that got created by squaring an integer . That means that anwser B is not the only correct anwser . From what I have seen in the coment section everyone says that B is correct because 3^2 + 4^2 = 25 . This is true however A can be correct as well 0^2 + 4^2 = 16 . Both 0 and 4 are integers and the sum of them equals 16 . Looking at every example with this knowledge we can proove that every anwser is correct 0^2 + 6^2 = 36 and 7^2 + 0^2 = 49 . The question should have been formed this way : Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers excluding 0 or something similar to what I proposed .
@Gumi_Twylit I don’t think you can have the same two squared numbers that are the same that sums to a bigger square anyway, so the word different is probably redundant there
@Tan Jun Huan To justify the OP, technically "Integer" wasn't specified in the question either...so any of these answers can have an infinite combination of real or irrational numbers as squares that can add to give you the answer.
@Nightmare Court Pictures Nope, it says "square number" which is a number of the form n*n where n is an integer. Note that "square number" and "square" are different things.
@Sharp Edged Well, in the context of geometry, a square is a shape, not a number. But I doubt anyone would think the question was about adding shapes. In the context of numbers, "square" is the same as "square number". It's just a shorter way of saying it.
@omp199 yes. It uses language that, though technically fine, is unlike what he would have learned in school, such as “sum of two smaller square numbers” (At least, it’s different from what I learned in school)
I was also wondering if multiple answers are right, since I saw the term "perfect square" in other video's for squared integers. A number is not necessarily an integer, but apparently a square number is an integer squared. Else (8^.5)^2+(8^.5)^2=4^2=16, is also a valid answer.
@Carson Lawler Thank you for your reply. I still don't understand why you find that language odd. How would you have expected it to be worded, if it had been a question you encountered at school?
Edit: I did find the language quite odd, myself. I don't really know why they used the phrase "also happens to be", when the single word "is" could have been used in its place. But I don't get the impression that that is what other viewers are finding strange.
@Carson Lawler When looking at English Wikipedia, I see a number is not necessarily an integer. The page gives the square root of 2 as example, so the square root of 8 would also qualify. Anyway, I read in a different comment "square number" is synonymous to "perfect square", so never mind.
I know it's 15 years old but the truth is, every number has this property, its as other people said Pythagorean Theorem. So even a^2 +b^2 is equal to 16. The a and b would be floating point numbers but the theory hold true. I'd say that this question was not precisely formed.
"Square number" has a specific definition in math and includes only whole numbers whose square roots are integers. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
You immediately know it is Pythagorean, and even if you can't deduce it via algebra, you can always hit and trial it. What I find stunning is that only 30% knew this.
I'm terrible at math, anything beyond basic multiplication, addition, subtraction, and division I go full Herpa derp derp. I forgot what square numbers were supposed to be and I just took a guess when I saw the 25, thinking to myself maybe it means the numbers that multiply off themselves. I was pleased to find out I was correct. x'D
Alot of sheep in the comments section get terribly butthurt one way or the other about these things, but it is what it is. People have strengths in some areas while severely lacking in others. I have a friend whose husband works in oil and brings 200k home every year and they are dyslexic, never graduated highschool, and never been to college.
It was in how they worded the question, I think. "Sum of two smaller square numbers" also threw me off. At first, I thought they meant that the number's square root had to be square numbers as well. I thought of the two 4s to make 16, not realizing that I had mixed up 'product' with 'sum.' It took me two minutes to finally make sense of the question.
@Anonymous Viewer yeah I thought the sum of the two square numbers had to miraculously had to add up (the sum of ) to one of the numbers and was thinking How's that even possible If they had said which number can have to square numbers that when added up can fit into the number would have made more sense quickly
It literally is just multiplication & addition. It’s simple. You don’t need all this Pythagorean BS everyone in the comments is rambling about. All it is is there’s only 2 square numbers smaller than 16 (not including 1) which are 4 & 9. 4+9=13 not 16 so it’s not that. There are 3 smaller than 25 which are 4, 9 & 16. Just from that thought of “9&16” you realise “oh that’s makes 25” Done ✅
Doppelganger D but if you learn pythagorus theorem, you involuntarily realise triplets of single digits when you see them. You don't need to apply it, just the phrase "sum of squares" sparks it.
@Rudrodeep Chatterjee That is making assumptions based off flawed logic. If you do not use something you forget it. It is simple as that. That is why people in schools and even out of schools question why they need to learn x or y because it only comes up in rare cases unless if you work in a field that requires knowing it. Also, keep in mind that at least in the United States they cram stuff into your brain for the sole purpose of you passing a end of the year test... There is a entire comment section of people on a video who hated and were bad at topics when taught in schools but ended up getting better at those topics when learning on their own.
@Namaste Hindustan I can tell that you probably aren't very good at English. To someone else the rules of the language are very clear and easy to remember. But for you, it's obviously a difficulty. So give other people the same understanding I'm sure you'd like to receive for your poor English skills.
@Namaste Hindustan Um...no. Time doesn't suddenly make the point irrelevant. As long as what I said was relevant to what was said before it, it's relevant. What you're trying to say is you no longer care. Which is understandable.
A problem of that size is best solved by brute force.
It would be different to offer a demonstration for an algebra exam. Where they surely require a theoretical proof instead of "I tried everything and found this"
@destinitra yeah of course that’s right but the answer is quite literally a common example used to demonstrate the theorem so it’s much faster to notice the pattern than to systematically go through every answer
I was thinking 16 is a square number that you can get from a smaller square number 2x2=4 and 4x4= 16. I bet that's what most people were thinking, 5x5= 25 but no square numbers equal 5
Yeah man, I remember after graduating high school I was getting all kinds of offers from game shows, they never really tell you about that when you graduate
Apparently the dude hasn't heard about the golden triangle - 3, 4, 5 - which is why it is called "golden" because the lengths of its sides form a sequence of consecutive natural numbers, the largest of which is 5. Knowledge at the elementary school level... Nobody don't have to be a math genius to know that.
If you have forgotten the exact definition of the term "square number" - which anyone can do! - then this question will be confusing no matter how good you are at math, because your overall understanding of it will have one "missing link".
Half of the answer is literally on the screen. As soon as you 16, then 25, your mind should already clock there's a difference of 9, and bingo! Astonishing!
🤣 It took me a minute to understand the verbiage of the question. Then once I did, I realized it didn't say they had to be the same number. That's when I figured it out. But, that would be harder under that much pressure. Lol
lmao i didn’t figure that out that it had to be the same number until the question was done i was so confused bc none of them are what i was thinking. i was thinking like 25 + 25
I wouldn’t have known the answer either (though it makes perfect sense now that I do) so I feel for him and the audience! I just wouldn’t have submitted a vote had I been there😆
this shouldn't have been very hard. 4^2, 5^2, 6^2, and 7^2 were already on the screen. The only other choices are 1, 4 and 9 for two smaller squares than the largest of the choices.
So 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49 -- which two of those add up to one of the others? Easy.
Any sum of the sides of a right triangle squared equals the hypotenuse of a right triangle by Pythagoreans theorem: 100 = 10^2 = 8^2 + 6^2 like the 25 = 5^2 = 3^2 + 4^2 (integer multiple of 4 for 25, 100, 400, etc.) sum of all sides of a right triangle.
Based on many, many comments, it appears that a lot of people thought that the question was asking which square number was the square of a square number. And 16 is the square of a square number since 2^2 = 4 and 4^2 = 16. Don't ask me why they thought that was the question. I don't know.
...the sum of two smaller square numbers. You suggested that 16 = 16 + 0, but that doesn't fit the requirement that the two summed numbers have to be smaller than the result square number.
Every single number up there was a correct answer because if you add itself and zero (also a perfect square), you could get any of the answers and they are all correct.
The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
The key word in the question is SUM-meaning two or more numbers added together. Square number: The product of a number multiplied by itself. So which of the 4 answers is made up of two numbers, which are then squared(multiplied by their selves) and then they are added together to equal the answer. 4X4=16 plus 3X3=9, then 16+9=25. Answer: C English skills are the key to solving word problems in math.
The task itself is so easy, so i think most people didn't understood the question or were overthinking
18 likes
Max Clavenna2023-03-30 13:51:37 (edited 2023-03-31 23:08:01 )
25 is the correct answer BUT... the question should have specified that it was dealing with natural integers greater than zero {N+} (otherwise 4^2 + 0^2 =16 could also have been true or even 5^2 + (3i)^2 =16, as someone correctly said in the comments )
Matko Trupinić the main thing of Egyptian triangle is that the proportional multiplying is the same Egyptian triangle but with different lengths so can't be made with others
Guessing that since 625=25^2, it is similar to a 3 4 5 triangle, so is equal to 15^2 + 20^2. Although 676=26^2, which makes it similar to a 5 12 13 triangle, so is equal to 10^2 + 24^2.
ultragamer659 damn, how did I miss 7^2 + 24^2 = 25^2 = 625.
I went through a phase where I loved triangles. Worked out that for a and b to be coprime, then c-b is either 1 or 2. Also that a^2 =c+b if c-b=1. There are so many other weird things i found, but i won't bore you with them here.
Yep, the equal angles are pi/4. Also the hypotenuse of sqrt(2) is also pretty important, as in this context it is the start of a famous method to calculate pi.
It is A famous triangle because of the diagram used to demonstrate the Pythagorean Theorem. However, since this triangle is composed of infrequently used angles, it is hardly the most famous. The 1-sqrt(3)-2 and 1-1-sqrt(2) are used far more as they are composed of far more referenced angles.
It's not such an easy question, in my opinion. Your need a moment of time to think about it. I thought the answer would be 16 at first as well as it is the square of 4x4. And 4 itself is the square of 2x2.
But then i realized that it says "the SUM of TWO smaller square numbers". So it has to be 25. As 25 is the also the sum of 16+9. And 16 (4x4) as well as 9 (3x3) are themselves squarenumbers.
Yeah, i think a lot of people thought this because when you hear square you immediately think square root so they probably thought they were dealing with 4,5, 6, and 7. Although 2 isn’t a square number but yeah, most people think it is.
tbh I also think the answer is 16 and when the answer is revealed, I'm confused, so I read the question again, its a smaller square numbers not square root, I didn't think of 9+16. I'm one of those dumbs.
I think this question is more tricky than people who got this correct in the comments believe. First you have to remember that a square has to be multipliable by it’s own root only twice. After you take some time to remember the definition of a square you have to think for a second to remember that 8 is not a square number because 2 x 2 x 2 equals 8 but your really doing 2 x 2 first then 4 x 2 so it does not work. Then you have to understand that the question is not saying that the numbers don’t have to be equal to each other because even though it is technically impossible it makes 8 plus 8 seem to be a really good option. So if you don’t do these kinds of math problems everyday then it is easy to forget that a number can be cubed from a smaller number and not be a square. So if you make these false assumptions that are easier to comprehend then it is hard to break out of that trap to think oh they were really asking something else that leads to an understanding that the answer is 3 x 3 = 9 plus 4 x 4 = 16 then 16 plus 9.
I was like, ah its A), easy! Then when I saw it was B) I was like "fudge, I did'nt understand the question" and would've lost 15k arrogantly without usin a lifeline (;.
Julie Ann you are right sorry for assuming things. But in any case this does not seem like a normal 5th grade topic. Sure we may have gone over this but probably not for that long. Anyways i had no right to assume things so sorry about that it's just i have had it with other people assuming things so i kind of blew my lid 😅
Emperor Bob Yes your correct👍 But if you would have examined my comment you could see that I already knew that. The only reason it would be reasonable for me to make this statement is, bc I was trying to show off to boost yourself confidence for some apparent reason. Now examine this comment, and see what am I saying
Emperor Bob Yes English and Grammer have always been my weakest subject. I averaged and 90 in that class and I would actually STUDY FOR TEST! BUT STILL AVERAGED A 90!! Any other sub. Was izi. And sure u noticed. I could clearly tell on how you tried to justify that statement to yourself
Marco There's some difference. I learnt about square numbers about in 3rd grade cuz the concept behind them is simple and my brother explained it to me because I was curious, but it was taught to us only in 6th grade. Learning before other people only depends about your school and the people around you. So, knowing square numbers at an "early" age doesn't make somebody "smarter" (in fact I suck at maths). As soon as you learn to multiply numbers technically you would be able to understand square numbers.
Pietro Tettamanti Who said I was smarter? Anyone can learn squares and multiplication at 5. Yes your environment does come into play on how soon you learn something. Frederick Douglass learned how to read at 12. And still became skilled on giving lectures.
I was given the opportunity to learn early, and I took advantage. As should everyone else. Take advantage of what you got. That's the point in my sayings
Brian Maputra Kurniawan I thought it was 16 in the early.I thought "sum" was the way to produce by any ways.so it could mean multiplier, additional,etc. So I counted it like this : 2²x2²
Jojo Wilson "The sum of" just means when added together. It's crazy how many people don't know that. Now, the question could have said "when added together" but that would simplify the question quite a bit because it would be telling you what "the sum of" means.
+tjbvver231 I'm an American, and I knew about square numbers before I attended elementary school. My father taught me up to the tens times tables at the age of four, and that obviously includes 1 x 1, 2 x 2, 3 x 3, etc. By the time I was in seventh grade, I was taking Algebra II. If today's students are still working on basic arithmetic by seventh grade, then something is amiss.
Aryaman Amitabh It's unbelievable that they actually pay people for those kinds of questions. That doesn't require any knowledge besides primary level education, and it's honestly sickening that people actually couldn't answer it
Deva, please provide your reference. I typed in "math by grade" in multiple different ways into multiple search engines. In north America, children are not introduced to multiplication or division until grade 3. I challenge you to provide a single source that shows this is a grade 2 question. It's certainly above grade 4.
There's so much difference between 'Merican averaged person and the rest of the world concerning studies.... If they don't attend private ultra--mega-hyper expensive universities, they seem not capable of getting over the distance of the nose. Pretty harsh but, unfortunately, too often truer than not.
I think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
start adding any 2 of them add see if you get a third square number 9 + 16 = 25 Therefore 25, a square number, is the sum of two smaller squares 9 & 16
Ok for those who did not understand the question: there is a certain number, say a², which can be made by the addition of b² and c², both being smaller, and b²+c²=a². Find the answer The easiest way to do this would be learning the square table since 9 is 3² and 16 is 4² and they can be added to make 25 which is 5², the other way is the not so obvious 3-4-5 side triangle, which ofcourse you would think of as a coincidence but somehow this works too
For me, the reason why I don't really understand the question is because English isn't my first language, so it takes time for me to understand what does that question really mean lol, but thank you for your comment, it helps me!
The question isn't accurate. First of all any number is sum of two squares, 16 is 1 squared plus root 15 squared. If they want to say whole number, we can still use 0. 0 squared plus 4 squared. What this question asking is sum of squares of two natural numbers. Clearly whoever wrote this question has very limited knowledge in maths.
that question was really confusing. i couldnt even really understand it myself, so i think him losing is completely understandable on the basis that he didn't understand
I honestly think this is a trick question. The way it is worded is the problem. Everyone went with A because the square root of 16 is 4, which is also a square of two smaller numbers, 2*2. Thats a trick question at its finest.
How did he have so much time and still get it wrong? This one is so simple because you know if your right. What two squared numbers did he think made 16 I can only imagine he thought 4*4 or 2^2*2^2 but it’s said sum not product.
The relationship between the squares that make up 25 is the basis for the trick you can use to create perfect right angles with only a string and a measuring tape. A triangle with sides of the ratio 3:4:5 forms a right angle.
When literally haven’t learnt much math not even difficult adding it’s hard and you want to make excuses and I have many. I’d only prefer to struggle if someone sat down with me and struggle with me to teach me but too bad that’s a privilege not a given right. To waste someone else’s time.
In right triangles, when one leg is exactly 1/3 longer than the other, the hypotenuses are whole numbers. 3, 4, 5 - 6, 8, 10 - 9, 12, 15 - 12, 16, 20 etc.
@Alexis What I put was a deduction that I got from the exercises that I proposed to my little son. I never got to consult other possibilities. Very thankful.
0 and 16 sum to 16, but this cannot be correct because 16 cannot be smaller than itself. The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers.
I’ll never forget my 7th grade math teach showed our class this video and we were all supposed to make our guess with our partner, and everyone said 16 and then my partner said she thought I was wrong and refused to answer 25 with me, and then I was the only one who got it right
idk as far as I am concearned the republicans are mostly idiots waving around guns and trying to show how long their dick is while fixing no problems whatsoever, so that doesn't look like being smart to me xD
LunnarisLP You're literally doing the exact same thing. Yes, the rare far-right person will do that, but there are also far-left people who think that every single thing coming out of someone's mouth is offensive and think that every child should be aborted. There are extremes on both sides, and you can't judge a side for that.
Max DragonSoul generalizing a country of over 400,000,000 people as all inherently dumb, simply for being born in certain region of the world is more ignorant than getting this question wrong
Anyone who mocks someone who has trouble with math or some other skill is a potential bully. Yes, they are, because their attitude is very similar to the attitude of bullies - "haha, I am above this person".
The answer is 25, because 9+16=25. 9 is a square number because 3×3=9 and 16 is a square number because 4×4=16. It's easy when you are at your home and have time to think and can see the options on the screen, but I imagine that if you are in a tv show where your answers will cost money this may be too much pressure to handle and also you have limited time to think, this makes things difficult
It's 25 since, 9+16=25 or 3^2+4^2=25. 9 and 16 are square numbers that are smaller to 25. Square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, etc. Most people could instantly solve this but they confuse themselves with the question.
All you gotta do is think about perfect squares and start summing them together randomly till you get one of the solutions (B).
A isn't right since all you have to work with is 1, 4, 9, 16. None of those will sum to 16. C isn't right since you have 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 to work with. Quick checks shows none of those add to 36. D isn't right by the same procedure.
B is correct since you have 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25 to work with. A quick look shows that 9 + 16 = 25.
Those are the numbers to square. But apparantly, "square number" doesn't mean the same thing as the combined meanings of "square" and "number", so the question wasn't flawed after all, only the English language.
Mathematical terms are a subset of the English language. "Square number" is not a mathematical term in Russian or Mandarin.
Also, if square number is a mathematical term, then so are square and number, in the context we are using them in. The fact that "number" has a different semantic meaning when you put the word "square" in front of it is shit stupid. English speaking mathematicians failed on that one.
Imtotallydiggingthis The terminology is fine. You simply assumed a definition without knowing what the term refers to. Do not get mad at mathematicians or the english language. Just learn from your mistake and move on.
5 likes
Иван Васильев2018-10-25 08:52:59 (edited 2018-10-25 10:16:58 )
Imtotallydiggingthis Вот и я о чём говорю! Если спросить меня на русском языке о сумме: квадрат числа "3" и квадрат числа "4", то очевидный ответ "25". :-D
А на самом деле: Меньшие из квадратов чисел, и никак иначе! А это соответственно для 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; будут 1; 4; 9; 16; 25; 36; 49;
Только один момент! Ещё раз "меньшие из квадратов чисел", т.е. из ряда 1; 4; 9; 16; 25; 36; 49; это будут меньшие числа 1; 4; сумма 1+4 = 5 (sic!)
Квадрат числа 5^2 = 25 (sic!)
Перевод для английских ребят ниже. Smaller square numbers? Serious?
I think smaller square numbers is 1^2=1, 2^2=4.
1+4=5; 5^2=25.
There is 3^2+4^2=5^2=25, sic! And NO SMALLER square numbers: 3^2=9, 4^2=16.
EagleLogic He means the square root of 7 being squared + the square root of 3. Squaring the square root of 7 gives you 7, plus the square root of 3, which is 9. 7+9 = 16. You clearly haven't reached high school yet, either that or you forget basic math pretty easily.
Nope. You guys dumb. But no worries at least 80% of the population is as dumb considering the audience results so don't take it bad and be happy with what you have
i honestly thought both square numbers were supposed to be the same numbers and i couldnt find solution, im retarded lol. but picking a is dumb smh 2^3 is cubed not squared
Tactical Chunder saying "how stupid people have become" is only something a stupid person would say because the level of education world wide is at an all time high with upward trends. So what is it? Did you stop education after "literally" primary school so you don't have the ability to read statistics but can feel good about solving basic algebra questions? Really makes you think.
I didn't say show off, I said feeling good about it. Two very different things. The fact that you couldn't comprehend that simple English sentence makes you objectively a bit thick. Also it's "people [...] are" not "is". That is basic primary school English. If you didn't know that, you are objectively a bit thick.
Tagæyan Lol @ trying to correct someone's correct use of grammar. The act of people knowing mathematics is the subject of the sentence, not the people themselves...
And nobody should feel good about knowing the answer to this fuck easy question. I only find it hilarious how laughably bad the American public seems to be at primary school-level mathematics.
"And nobody should feel good about knowing the answer to this fuck easy question." Are you fucking stupid. That's exactly what I said. Jesus, you really do have problems comprehending basic English sentences. Going from a room of about 100 People to "the American public" is also such a stupid thing to say. It's funny that people who feel the need to boast online that they where able to solve basic algebra questions and those "stupid Americans" couldn't are unable to have any reasonable thought?! Maybe you are on the spectrum.
Lol, turns out Americans are insecure as well as dumb. Learn to accept that your country is mostly made of morons and find the humour in it. The UK has a population of imbiciles too, but we know how to laugh at our incompetence. Christ, you guys are touchy...
Many people are pointing the finger at Americans as if people in their country were smarter but being smart is not a matter of where you're from. There is only an educational issue. There are some countries where school and studying are the most important things in life and other countries where people don't even go to school
I mean I'm not smart but I'm so advanced in math now that I can actually calculate the probability in my head of me being in the situation seen in the video above. It is very low and not actually worth the time I started investing in it back in 2007 after watching this video. Fuck me, I wasted all this time and effort and it's too late now, should have gone for horticulture.
@Azhar Haque the problem with "basic math" is it really isn't basic. this problem is basically asking if you know about the 3-4-5 triangle which is a random fact on its own. if you don't know it, it doesn't mean your dumb but it clearly means you're ignorant/or have forgotten math altogether. I myself am good at math, but had to take a while answering the problem.
Bro, this is by far one of the easiest math questions I've seen. How and why the audience and the contestant both chose A is ridiculous. I'm in middle school and this was child's play, so it worries me that half the audience couldn't do middle school math.
I paused the video to work it out and I'm ashamed to say this took me way longer than it should have. Rather than just reciting all the low, square numbers and adding them together and trial and erroring it, I started with 49 and was taking away other numbers and thinking ... not a square ... not a square ... not a square ...
I've sat in the audience for this show before, and sometimes it's not that you couldn't work out the answer, it's that they literally don't even show the audience a screen with the options on before you vote (they tell you, and you have to remember what they've said). That's hard when you're trying to do trial and error to work out an answer, especially if they don't give you a lot of time before asking the audience.
I got the correct answer eventually but being in that audience I could easily have rushed or forgotten the options.
This answer is surprisingly tricky because the first choice is the SQUARE of two square numbers, not the sum. To get this question correct requires sifting through all the squares that could add up to each option and resting on three and four. Not surprised everybody got it wrong!
Maths is really complex in the USA but in higher education(Colleges). we are taught these things in our formal schooling, the reason why India produces world-class engineers(IITians) like Sunder Pichai, Satya Nadella and thousands more. And not only India but china and japan are also very well versed in maths
I don't know about other countries but even a below average Student in India would answer this before 30 seconds, this is literal defination of basics for us. Permutations,Trigonometry and other stuff gets real hard here
I know there are a lot of very smart people in india, but taking a small cross section of a group of people especially in this situation is not a good representation of the population as a whole@Prakash Pandey
@AL we can see people in the audience are of age higher than 13-15(8th-10th standard) so they already know squares , and they also have higher literacy rate than India. Still 70% gave wrong answers 🌝
But not everybody is a math major and may have narrowed their education on other things such as marketing or english or history etc... Many of them may have also been out of school for decades and actually just working for a living. I don't know @Prakash Pandey
I know math very well, trig, algebra, stats, long arithmetic, linear programming, all sorts of math. But even I couldn’t understand the question here. So to the people bashing him saying “he doesn’t know math” he dosnt know this math, you don’t know what math he does know, it’s impossible to know all math. No one does, you only remember the parts that’s relevant to to your career.
Everybody thinks it's easy after they saw the answer. The reality is, this is a math question and people are not used to them. It requires practice in order to think mathematically.
So the answer is 25 because the square numbers are 16 and 9. You either calculate, which takes time or you know it by heart since is the pythagorean 3,4,5 triple.
15 years old video recommended out of the blue. Idk why...
Hearts don't normally sink with frustration. Sadness, yeah. Loneliness, well OK. But frustration? I don't feel it. Frustration is a brain thing. Your brain sank 👍
15october91 I don't doubt that you are good at maths but I can give you endless combinations of square numbers (with digits after the comma) of which the sum is either 16, 25, 36 or 49. The point of this question is that they have to be ''natural numbers'' with no digits after the comma, but I reject this question as it is very vulnerable for interpretation
Random Internet Person, they only made one or two mistakes whilst you made five. The second one that the maths teacher had made is only if you carefully attribute specific emotions with the heart. That is most do not talk about a frustrated heart which was caused by a logic error (such equating dollars to cents).
For which it is best to spread tolerance and love!
Well, the question didn't specify what type of number they are talking about. So every option can be the answer. eg:3^2 + √7^2 = 16. So they were not wrong after all. Everyone answered correctly.🤠
The question specified that the answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. A “square number” is a whole number whose square root is an integer. The square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number from this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
My math teacher during freshman year showed this to my math class and I was the only one who got the question right. LITERALLY EVERYYONE ELSE IN THE CLASS chose answer A.
But 16 is the sum of 5.76 and 10.24, both of which are square numbers. They're not perfect squares because they're not integers, but they ARE square numbers, having rational square roots. So in fact all 4 choices are correct. 12.96+23.04=36, and 17.64+31.36=49. The game show actually messed up asking this question. They should have said "perfect squares", not "square numbers".
The bad thing is not that he got it wrong, but that 50% of the audience chose 16, though 16 is such a SMALL digit, so it takes no time to cover all the squares before 16 since they are just 1, 4, and 9. Hence 1 + 4 (that's not ), 1 + 9 (that's not it), and 4 + 9 (that's not it). Hence 16 CAN NOT be the correct answer. Doing this only takes a few seconds, with just three possible combinations 3!/2!(3-2)! or 6/2 =3 since order does not matter when adding the two digits. For 25, there are just 6 possible combinations (24/4); hence 1 +4, 1+ 9, 1+'16, 4+9, 4 +16, 9+16. But if one remembers the Pythagorean triple 3, 4, and 5, then the above is unnecessary and needs to know 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 or 9 + 16 =25 (Pythagorean Theorem). 70% of the audience got the problem wrong 1:18 So, I could understand if they chose the other wrong choices since they are bigger numbers and may want to go through the different possibilities.
The specified conditions were that the answer had to be the sum of two smaller square numbers. A square number a.k.a. perfect square is a whole number whose square root is also a whole number.
The only possible correct choice given this condition is 25.
I was expecting a challenge when i saw $15,000. I don't mean to offend anyone here but this is something everyone who completed middle school should know. In fact, it is 4th or 5th grade math. I have 2 high schoolers so i know this for sure. About a quarter of the audiences know 5th grade math, it is shocking. And we claim US is the most power country in the world.
English is not my first language, but I was really struggling with this even though I am a programmer and I studied pretty advanced math, lol. Anyway the reason I had a problem with this is because I thought the "two smaller square numbers" had to be the same numbers, which I believe doesn't have a solution as an integer (well except zero of course). But for an english native audience - yes they are probably stupid.
No it was phrased oddly even for a native English speaker. Ot even to me a second to figure out what the question was asking. And for a kid with $16,000 on the line and millions watching, the pressure would have forced all math out the window.
If you're a programmer you should have figured it out knowing that there's one and ONLY one correct answer. You made the assumption these smaller numbers are the same, it's not that hard to check all even answers and instantly see that this assumption is wrong, hence these smaller numbers are different which leads to only one correct answer - 25.
As a native English speaker I think the question was correctly written. I can understand someone having trouble processing it especially if not a native speaker, but as it's written it's perfectly clear and leads to the one correct answer.
I was confused af too. Knowing it meant different ones I instantly though 16 and 9 to make 25. I would like to say a stupid person wrote this however it seems logical that they purposely wrote it that way to make it less likely for the contestant to be correct
How would other people write this question? It might be confusing but it's the most precise way to ask the question. It's a mathematical way of describing the result they want
Indeed there are NO perfect squares that match the conditions you thought they were asking for, because that would require the square root of 2 to be a rational number. See if a number is a perfect square, it is of the form x=n^2 for some integer n. But if y=2*n^2 is also to be a perfect square, then y=m^2 for some integer m, and the result would be that m/n would equal the square root of 2, making the square root of 2 rational.
I would have honestly written "the sum of two different square numbers", as even though I'm not a native I understood the question, but I thought about summing the same squares for some reason.
I've studied math for a while and still does. I'm french but also read books in english. To me there was no ambiguity at all in the question. In math when you say 'prove that every even number is the sum ot two primes' you didnt state the two primes has to be the same
@Queta Arbuste yeah I know what you and the other user mean, It's just that my mind instantly thought the two smaller numbers had to be equal for some reason.
@Carson Lawler It basically asked "Which square number (among A,B,C,D) is the sum of two smaller square numbers?". Happens to be = is. This is a perfect mathematical description.
I bet that 90% of people here that have even a college degree in math related things guessed it wrong, at least without reading the question 5 times or really thinking about it. It is just a typical trick question that should be extremely easy to answer but somehow confuses the majority of the people.
Don't be mad if you gussed it wrong and you other people stop circle jerking how you got it right.
Omg i was thinking about it like 2 times 2 is 4 and 4 times 4 is 16... it's not that I don't know math it's that the question was just a tad bit confusing
Math is Greek to you as well, every time you start studying a new math concept. Nobody thinks that math is a piece of cake the entire time - everyone struggles with it at various points.
Just looked again at the question, and it seems so obvious it's asking which of those numbers is made from two other squared numbers, but it's not how I first read it.
Cristi Neagu What I first thought it was asking, as I think the audience did, is "which of these numbers is the square of a smaller square". Which would be 16 as it's 4 squared, which in turn is 2 squared.
1 like
no name2023-05-09 18:07:07 (edited 2023-05-09 18:10:27 )
The question was not entirely understood until the answer was given by Merrideth. *The question could have been longer, to begin with for clarification. 4^2 + 3^2 = 16 + 9 = 25
It’s an English question. People don’t know what “also sum of these two square numbers” even means. 4, 9, 16, 25 are your only choices here of two squares to sum. So your choices of sums are 13, 20, 29, 25, 34, 29 and 25 is the only square sum.
At first, none of these seemed to be the answer because I was thinking the "two smaller square numbers" had to be the same number. Not realizing they can be different really got me. It's worded pretty trickily.
When I see wording like "the sum of two smaller square numbers", nowhere did it state "the same square numbers", so I never thought it would be "the same" square numbers.
@Space junk A square number (AKA a perfect square) is the product of an integer (whole number) multiplied by itself. if you are on about decimal numbers being square numbers, then they are technically the ratio of two square numbers.
3 and4 aren't the squares though. If the question was, "which number is the sum of two smaller squares" the answer should have been 9 and 16. Those are squares. Perfect squares in fact. 3 and 4 are the square roots. Am I missing something here?
Alright, this is pretty easy. We'll tackle this via process of elimination. We know 16 is 4 squared. And numbers lower than 4 are 2 and 3 (Not counting 1 since 1 squared gives us 1). 2 squared + 3 squared = 4 + 9, which is not 16. Hence it cannot be Option A. 5 squared is 25. Numbers less than 5 are 4 and 3. 4 squared is 16 and 3 squared is 9, which gives us a sum of 25. And that is why it should be Option B.
A square number is a whole number whose square root is also a whole number. The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers.
True, 0 + 16 is 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself.
Really just draw a line with 2,3,4,5 above the line, and their squares just underneath them below the line- 4,9,16,25. Only one combination of sums is listed as a choice. This is how people who are geniuses at math do so. They visualize the equations.
( oh god im gonna look like a fool but ) wouldn't technically all of them be correct answers because you just take the normal square + 0^2 ( so for example: 5^2+0^2 =25 and so on )?
I hope this guy does not claim to have a high school diploma (let alone a college degree). A 12 year old should be able to answer this question. Let's put it down to nerves
This was definitely a "two coins add up to 15 cents, one of them is not a nickel" situation for me. I thought it would have to be the sum of identical square numbers and was completely tied in knots. Not a very well-worded question tbh. If the showrunners had spent some more time on their grammar skills, he'd likely have had a much better shot at the 15k (ironically enough).
@mambda which of these square numbers are also the sum of two smaller numbers. I’m sorry but it literally just said which of these numbers are the sum of two smaller numbers. They are all numbers that result from a square and can be found from the sum of two smaller numbers. 16 is a square number that can be found when you sum 3 and 14 together.
It’s asking for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. You are simply taking the square root of the square root, which has nothing to do with addition.
You don’t even need the Pythagorean theorem for this one. Let’s take 16 as an example. In your head, you list out all the square numbers that are smaller than 16. In this case, we have 4 and 9, but they don’t add up to 16, so we move on to 25. We’ve got 4, 9 and 16, and obviously 16+9=25.
I found out the answer but it took like 3-5 minutes just because the wording of the question. If they said perfectly square numbers I think I could have figured it out in a minute or less.
@mambda precisely and where I'm from people tend to say perfectly square not squared numbers. Because any number can be squared, like the square root of two.
It's not about the math but about the phrasing, incase you haven't noticed that people speak differently all around the world and have different notation and phrasing to match even within the same math department.
@Isazi Sempi They didn't say "squared numbers" but "square numbers". I'm not a native speaker myself and with a handful of braincells left you should be able to deduce that they probably don't mean 1^2 + sqrt(15)^2 but the sum of two perfect squares. Also in the english language squared number and perfect square do mean the same thing in this context. Assuming the contestant and the majority of the audience are native english speakers this is completely irrelevant. So even
@mambda you should probably go back to whatever shit area your from that doesn't speak English and stop trying to sound smart on a youtube comment section.
There are plenty of pythagorean triple: 3-4-5 and All its multiples (6-8-10, 9-12-15, ecc..) 5-12-13 and All its multiples (10-24-26, 15-36-39, ecc..) 8-15-17 and All its multiples (16-30-34, ecc...) 7-24-25 and its multiples...
ajneufeld762 Initially, my mind went straight to 16 as well, for some reason. As soon as I did the math though, I immediately changed to 25. It's weird
Actually, all you need to do is use Pythogoras' Theorem. You don't even need to use it to solve it, since the Pythagorean triplet 3 4 5 is quite well-known.
I just immediately thought of pythagoras, 3^2+4^2=5^2 is the classic example. I then checked if either of the others were possible just to be sure. I did that by substracting some square and then seeing if that is another square (eg 49-25=24=/ a sq, 49-16=33=/ a sq). After about 20 seconds I was so sure it was 25 I'd bet my life on it.
That's actually not the best way especially on the hot seat. The best way to do it is to remember pythagorean triples and see which number could be the hypotenuse of a right triangle with integral side lengths
Math is not about memorizing answers, it's about drawing lines from one concept to another and learning how logic works.
The required knowledge of concepts is this: All of those numbers are square numbers. Square numbers are numbers resulting from other numbers multiplied by itself.
The question then asks : Which of these numbers can be resulted by adding together two numbers, each of which can be a product of numbers multiplied by themselves?
If you can't hold onto these thoughts for long enough to answer the question, it is because you are stupid - not because math is useless.
Was it impossible for you to formulate your comment without sounding like a jerk? Or are you one of those people who are always like "I say whatever the hell I want"?
0 likes
Javier Clement2023-02-28 02:58:46 (edited 2023-02-28 02:58:54 )
I thought the question was asking which square number is the square of a square number as I'm sure most of the audience was thinking the same. They're not wrong √16=4 √4=2 and 2+2=2^2=4 4^2=16. Were they asking which square number is the sum of two "different" square numbers should have put emphasis on different numbers. 9+16 or 3^2+4^2=5^2 it's the damn Pythagorean theorem 🤔🔥⭕
A "square number" is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Looking at this set, the only number in the set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 the point I was making is that 16 is 4 squared or 2 squared times 2 squared Meaning it's just as correct an answer as 25 being the sum of 4 squared plus 3 squared correct? Oh dude whoosh. I just realized that I was multiplying instead of adding. 🌴💀👌🏻
3^2 + 4^2 =5^2 is mathematically the simplest pythagorean triple (set of numbers that satisfy the question's condition), and if I remember correctly, it's commonly taught in north America to students between ages 10-13 lmfao.
In short, this man (and most of the audience) literally cannot do middle school math (and American middle school at that lmao)
this is a vocabulary question. If you understand the word "sum" (adding) and the word "squares" (like the first six squares: 4,9,16,25,36,49)
you just look at the first 6 squares in your head and see which TWO of the SIX add up to one of the choices. Therefore, NOT A.....NOT B.....Yes C. Done.
With right vocab, you get the answer in about 4 seconds.
Sometimes hosts drop hints whether the answer is right or wrong... She literally told him that he still has lifelines and should probably consider using
The host doesn't know the answer. Well, unless it's obvious to them like in this case. Still though, the answer is revealed after they've locked it in for both of them.
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because a number cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot be the sum of itself and 0.
All around the world we watch shows where someone is asking random Americans questions about basic knowledge because their answers are enormously stupid.
It's not a math problem; it's a grammar/logic problem. Your knee-jerk reaction is to add the same factors that make the square, but that doesn't work. It's hard to suss when you're under pressure. That's why they asked it.
Just go through the squares, starting with 1 in your head. 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. Now just see, if a pair of those numbers, adds up to one of the answers. 9+16 = 25
So, the squares of 3 (9) and 4 (16) added up, equal 25, which is answer B.
I feel bad for the guy, trusting the audience on this one.
To be fair, I’ve taken every level of math offered at my school for engineering students (which is all of them except a few proof classes) and at first I thought it was 16 because I didn’t fully understand the question, my brain jumped immediately to the square roots of each, then knowing 4^2 is 16 and 2^2 is 4 I was like “oh this is easy”, which is what I imagine the crowd did too. But reading the question again I realized it was the “sum” of two squares which is much harder than just a product of two squares. Although, this question is sort of a Pythagorean triples problem, and a 3, 4, 5 forms a Pythagorean triple, so I already knew 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, so 25 is the correct answer. This isn’t necessarily “not knowing math”, it’s “not reading the question carefully enough”.
also...the question wasnt a trick nor difficult to understand..and it should only take 5 minutes to go through the squares smaller than 49 (which narrows it down a shite ton) that add up to anything in the choices....its really bad that he or he audience couldnt figure it out...other countries will def laugh at US, (you and me both) if they ever see this vid..we should delete it LOL
1 like
King Kweku2023-03-08 23:18:59 (edited 2023-03-08 23:21:43 )
That answer doesnt make any sense at all..I had "A" in both college Algebra 1 & 2 and Calculus...the answer is to that question is "A" = 16...not 25.. The square root of 16 is 4 which also a sum of 2 small square roots of 4 each.. so it becomes the sum of square root of 4 each which is 2 +2 =4
@King Kweku It specifies which of the answers (16, 25, 36 or 49) is the sum of two squares. Not "The square root of these answers is the sum of another square number"
@King Kweku Then you misunderstood the question. If you claim 16 is correct, then there are only 1,3,9 that are smaller square numbers. You cannot add those to get 16.
The next option is 25. Then there are 1, 2, 9, 16 that are smaller square numbers. 9 + 16 = 25. Those are the smaller square numbers.
4 likes
Kaiser Wilhelm2023-03-17 17:34:24 (edited 2023-03-17 17:34:52 )
@King Kweku Clearly the American school and college system is quite a failure to behold. Square numbers are unambiguously defined as numbers that are themselves equal to the square of a positive integer number. If you are talking about the sum of two square numbers, that means you take the sum of two numbers that each follow the given criterion. This is the "sum of two square numbers", that weird thing you described is just the square of a sum and is worthless for this consideration.
0 likes
King Kweku2023-03-17 18:28:53 (edited 2023-03-17 18:47:11 )
@Kaiser Wilhelm this has nothing to do with American schools...it's all about understanding the question and using the right concepts...I checked it out again and realised the answer is 25...because none of the multiple choice equals to the SUM of 2 small squares, but only 25 does.....and that's why I deleted my previous comment...and this has absolutely nothing to do with schooling in America or elsewhere...it's about reading the question carefully and understanding the math language so you can apply the right concept or formula to find the right solutions...the square of a number could either be explained as the square root of that number example is (square of 9 is 3, 16 is 4, etc..) or that number squared example is (3)^2 is 9 and (4)^2 is 16, etc... the question should have been more precise in the math language used...they should have used "SQUARED" but not "square"
@King Kweku I'll concede that this might not be correlated to American schools, but you can't deny that the American school system is bad
0 likes
King Kweku2023-03-17 18:56:10 (edited 2023-03-17 19:13:49 )
@Kaiser Wilhelm not really...I studied in Africa, Europe, the carribean and finally in NY trying to get my Nursing Degree...it actualy depends on the material been taught and the American system of education ...I realised that it's Harder to pass in those other countries but a bit easier to get through the educational system in America...not a substantial difference but it's just a different approach to teaching and learning with its flexibility in some courses...though we also have lots of tests, quizes, assignments, research, surveys, etc every now and then, just to prepare you for the real world in your carrear goals. So we all have to constantly keep up with the study material constantly through out the entire course as different chapters unfold...other countries may pack up everything you need to know at a early stage with lots of theoretical studies and less practical knowledge, you know alot but how do you apply it in the real world??..All educational systems have their ups and downs and it all depends on the courses one is pursuing, but I can definitely say that the North American system though may be easier in (Canada and USA) compared to other countries, but they also have a very practical carrear driven approach to education.
@King Kweku You are precisely pointing out the worst aspect of the American school system and somehow called it a positive. It's not a good thing if education is only reduced to the purpose of creating the most efficient workers in the shortest possible time space. The fact that a politician like Donald Trump can win elections in the USA using the most obvious lies to the point where some people even drank desinfection liquid on his advice is a very powerful example for how heavily they are lacking a school system that provides some general knowledge and teaches critical thinking. A good education system has to teach mental skills beyond what is going to be required for work otherwise the population will increasingly not know anything that isn't functional, but yet meaningful.
@prtnrs any sum of two squares forms a valid set of triangle side lengths (as per the Pythagorean theorem) but I guess if it’s an integer then it is a Pythagorean triple lmao, it is not a coincidence. Math is interconnected, like how ANY time you find pi in an equation you can find a circle somewhere in the derivation.
@Kaiser Wilhelm idk man, I just cited my own peer-reviewed published journal paper from my research in an academic assignment. Doing pretty well, plus I’m in aerospace engineering so I think the US has the unique ability to speak about education in that field (touch the moon, loser)
@Kade Nielsen lol you dweeb. You wrote one comment, then deleted it, then wrote an even more moronic comment.
You clearly do spend more time on a YouTube video than you let on - the need to reply to every criticism is a clear indication of the low sense of self worth you have.
Just move on with your life man. People will never stop harassing you about your original comment until you decide to delete it.
They weren't trolling him. The question takes more thought than to regurgitate something you heard in class, or on the radio, or saw on TV, a million times.
@OneWeirdDude I understand the difficulty of the question, as I just saw it before making my comment. I was referring to the audience, who answered the question that they weren’t 100% sure about. They made his chances even worse by giving unnecessary input. Why help someone if you are unsure about it yourself?
@JereJK What can I say, it's not like his life was on the line, or like he was donating to charity, or something. Perhaps if the audience was offered $5 each for a right answer or something?
@OneWeirdDude Now that rewatched the whole thing, I now see the audience clapping after he just lost $15k. Not even a sigh or anything. They started clapping. That’s all I have to say.
This was a tough one. It took me a full minute to think it through. Once I remembered that 1, 4 and 5 are square numbers, and 2 and 3 are not, that made it easier. I think the term "square" may be throwing some people off, because they're thinking of the written shape of the numbers.
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. Therefore, the answer can't be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
Pretty simple if you know the first few squares by heart. 1x1=1, 2x2=4, 3x3=9, 4x4=16. Adding the last two (9+16=25) and Bingo, we have a winner. Do it in your head in 30 seconds. If the MC would just stfu for 30 seconds and let him concentrate...
This is a maths question, you are bound to figure it out, by brute force at worst, since you're not limited by time. This makes him objectively stupid.
Ok I was confused when the answer came up and realised if the question said “the sum of 1 smaller square number” it would be correct, I think so anyway
Everyone out here talking about pythagorean theorem and all that, and maybe my way is just a more intuitive rather than theory-based approach... shouldn't you just start squaring all the lower numbers (just 1-6 would be fine) and then see if any two of the products add up to any of the four answers? 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36. 9 and 16 should jump out right away, easy math. This literally took me one second to solve.
So many different possible ways to work this out. I realized that I chose a really long way, I wrote down all square numbers 1-49 and checked whether adding two together would give me the correct answer. I noticed 16 and 9 added them together and I was granted 25.
That's the easiest! Also, if you remember pythagoras' theorum and the 345 triangle, that gives you the answer as 3 squared + 4 squared = 5 squared ie. 9 + 16 = 25!
I took an even longer approach. I went to school and spent the first 18yrs of my life learning amongst other things basic mathematics. I finally managed to solve this puzzle.
You don’t even need to think much. The greatest choice is 49, and since we want the sum, then you only have perfect squares 1,4,9,16,25,36 to consider. Why even consider something greater than or equal to 49?
@JustinMplayz it's just about practice, I know, it may sound like a long way to solve a problem but just consider he's not used to solve these kind of problems in his daily life, so it's totally understandable that he choose that way
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
To all who may read this comment let me simplify why the question was perfectly fine, and why many comments in this comment section are wrong. One: A "square number" refers to a perfect square, that is, a number that is the product of an integer squared. No, you would not be able to use square root 5 in an answer Two: To those of you saying "0^2 + 4^2 = 16", the question specified the two numbers had to be smaller.
Julian VH: Precisely, I went in the direction of Cheeze pizza and I showed that even admitting the irrational (whose zero) the result remained 25 (because -4 and -3 are smaller than 0 and 4:)). So even if the question was asked incorrectly, it did not change the result.
I thought it was 16 at first as well because I misunderstood the question. I thought it meant like, if you square a number and then you square it again you get one of the answers, in which case it would be 16 (2>4>16)....Yeah, I did realize I read it wrong like 5 seconds later but if I was in the audience I may have given him the wrong hint entirely by accident
This question is NOT poorly worded in any way whatsoever. The fact that the word "SUM" is there clearly shows that the question is talking about how the 2 smaller square numbers are ADDED and not multiplied. Just because people "tend to think this way" when the question is first heard does not mean it is poorly worded. After all, this contestant (and anyone with a middle school education) CLEARLY had enough time to test out all of the answers. Also, this question was worth $15,000, probably a sign that one should THINK before answering. These people were simply too quick to come up with an answer without thinking critically. That does not mean that the question was worded poorly. It means that they were dumb.
I've never heard "square numbers". One would be more familiar with "perfect square" or something similar.
18 likes
Miss Difficulty2018-04-08 11:33:54 (edited 2018-04-08 11:34:09 )
if it said "any two other smaller square numbers" then I would agree with you. two mentions of square numbers in two different ways, this is why some small paragraphs are the worst to solve in some assignments cause it's easy to misinterpret
Although, if you did want multiplication, you could go with 16 if you prefer them the same ((2^2)^2). If you prefer the numbers different, then go with 36 ((2^2)*(3*2)_
But any number can fit that criteria: 16 is root of 10 squared + root of 6 squared 36 is 4 squared + root of 20 squared Technically should have said rational numbers but considering that would make all the awnsers right this is just fine
I must agree with you on that bit about coming up with an answer too quickly. I do it sometimes myself and the reasons why I do it are because maybe I don't want to spend too much time overthinking the problem that I'll get tired and bored and would want to do something else; something which I don't have to think as much but can still do it with no problems whatsoever. I heard that one uses 10% of their brains and I think that the reason this is so is because if we used anymore, it might result in headaches, migraines, it might damage our health and 10% just seems like the safety point before all of that happens. Another reason could be silly pride, in that I'm trying to show off and prove something not only to myself, but to the people watching or reading this comment. Another reason could be that I just decided to give my brain a break and let somebody else do the thinking while I do the watching; take the load off, you know? And when the pressure's on me, I try very hard to honestly answer the question, but not everything is coming to me as quickly as I would like and I'm just going with what I have and hope it's enough. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If I think of any other reasons, I'll be sure to let you know.
This question is absolutely worded incorrectly in that the word “square” is used interchangeably as to mean perfect square number like 4 16 25 36 and also a squared number like 4^2 3^2. The question should read Which of these square numbers (or even more clear perfect square but square is acceptable) also happens to be the sum of two smaller squared numbers.
I really read the question completely wrong. By another square I was looking at 4x4 and I noticed 4 is a perfect square as well. I did not think about Pythagorean Theorem at all. This is very embarrassing but good that I now realize I have to learn how to read the question.
noueis the pythagorean ttheorem is based off this concept which is what he was getting at, if you can solve this question you can solve any pythagorean question.
First of all my skin colour is neither black nor brown. 2ndly stop arguing with Indians.We aren't ur ENEMIES.CHINA IS. China is selling phones and laptops full of spyware in your country. MOREOVER China is kicking your big asses in trade war. U can't easily spy on then coz they have banned Google, Facebook and WhatsApp in their country.
I don't even know what a square number is. English is not my first language so that might have something to do with it. But I have the feeling in my native language I would also have no idea. Math for me is more boring than just watching paint dry.
Square numbers are numbers that you get when you multiply a particular number by itself. 1x1 = 1 2x2 = 4 3x3 = 9 4x4 = 16 So square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, etc.
The question is asking which of the numbers given in the answers can be gotten by adding together 2 smaller square numbers. The answer is 25, because 9 and 16 are square numbers, and 9 +16 = 25.
As a 57 yr old, I'm embarrassed to say that I hated and failed at higher level mathematics. I did however excel in English. Therefore, I cannot solve an Einstein math theorem, but I can aid in explaining it in modern English.😭
Just to be clear, this question is not high level math. Everybody who learned basic algebra has answered this question, which should mean anyone with a high school diploma
it's fine, this is just high school algebra and not calculus. even I had to pause and think since I haven't done these problems in a while since high school.
Watching this got me so pissed off. I was screaming B at my screen. A recent report went out, showing that 78% of adults have the maths skills of an year old...
I understand. I find the mathematical literacy of many adults rather appalling. I also find the sheer ignorance that people have towards math, is disgusting. Loads of people can say the name Pi or quote a basic theorum (pythagoras ect) and act all high and mighty, but very few seem to be able to apply these, or know what they are used for.
it's common sense a square has the same length base and height. all you gotta do is multiply! smh seriously no hope for americans. it's no wonder the world laughs at us..
ALLYOUWANTREDHOTS Wait, what? 25 is not a shape. It is a number. While squares DO have the same width adn height, a square number is slightly different. You square two integers and you add them to get one of the answers.
exactly a square has the same base and height. now what is the area of a square with a side length of 5? you get 25. therefore the number 25 is a square.
The wording of the question made you think that it was A. When it says the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, it makes you think 2 and 2, because you can multiply and at the same 2 numbers to get the same answer, which is 4. Given the answer of 16, it makes you want to back track it. It it a very misleading question, and If the question was reworded a bit, he and probably the audience would've gotten it. If you replaced A with any other square number, the question might have been a little bit more obvious.
What are you talking about, if I was in the audience, I would try to trick the contestant with the most plausible seeming wrong answer every time. That doesn't make me uneducated, that just makes me a dick.
Joel Roy That's stupid. If someone wants to drop out of school they should be able to. Their life is in their own hands. The only people that should be able to object are their parents. I
Keep in mind these people are the product of PUBLIC EDUCATION. Which political party fights tooth and nail to limit choice in education? That's right, the Democrats. Which political party makes it difficult to fire lousy teachers? That's right, the Democrats and their sacred teachers unions. Big Government doesn't care about you any more than teachers unions care about students.
firecloud77 1.More choice in educaton = less peple taking math classes. (not saying i am against it that linearly)
2.The other variable is, if enough people would work as a teacher, if they wouldnt have a secure job like that, and by the way the problem is not lousy teachers if 70% of the audience got it wrong,(+ assuming some/many of the 30% were just lucky) so you want to fire over 70% of all Teachers in the USA to solve the problem? good luck with that.
3.Your last statement is just a mere claim.
You should maybe visit a logics class. I don't say the blatant accusations of +theWatchingDog are correct, but its just an empty polarizing political phrase.
Yours on the other hand claims to have content, so i can criticise your faulty logic. No offense intended.
jonas samuel >>>> More choice in educaton (sic) = less peple (sic) taking math classes. <<<< Since when? How on earth did you come up with that false equation? And how did you manage to spell two words incorrectly in one sentence?
>>>> The other variable is, if enough people would work as a teacher, if they wouldn't have a secure job like that, <<<< Huh? What in the world are you trying to say here? That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
>>>> so you want to fire over 70% of all Teachers in the USA to solve the problem? <<<< Did I say that? NO, I didn't say that. But obviously that is one of the problems with public education. Teacher unions hold so much sway over politicians and administrators that it’s almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. In New York some teachers are paid not to work. Here, do some reading for a change: http://huff.to/1ppD6fj
>>>> The problem is far more multylayered (sic) and complex. <<<< It certainly is, and you've added no new information to the discussion. All you did was make patently false claims borne of ignorance, complete with spelling errors, horrendous grammar, embarrassing punctuation and flawed logic.
You are obviously the product of public education!
firecloud77 Hello, thank you for taking the time to answer, i am going to ignore you unnececary hate towards me, i am not a native speaker and i was really tired, when i left the comment. :)
(read for a change? interesting assumptions that you make about me^^.)
1.there is some interesting research on this, and pretty clear numbers. Google: "Fear of math can cause real pain" Math is really unpopular for the broad masses, so the assumption less people take it if there is more choice is pretty logical right?
2.I f you are not able to understand what i am saying okay, but you probably just want to hate a little more against me :) I just say there is a reason why teachers have such secure jobs, i don't say it shouldnt be reevaluated.
3. I asked a question you answered, where is the problem?
4. i added another side to the conversation, i just say there is a reason why the things are like that, if its a good enough reason to keep it like that is another discussion. You make it appear (i read it like that at least) as if its completely irrational to limit choice in education and have some job security for teachers.
Have a nice day, and i hope you don't the people you meet in real life like that :). because then you would come of as pretty arrogant, and making assumptions about someone you don't know at all. (sorry i had to write that :). )
Can`t agree more!! This is just like a first grade math problem!! This kind of math already appeared much enough in math calculation of any math problem, but they just don`t know the answer!!
Being nervous in a game show is quite common, and especially for math, a clear mind is not meaningless.
People that cant stand the pressure will be quite unable to calculate under stress, its not for everyone.
Its exactly the kind of question people will get wrong much more likely in such a situation compared to sitting in front of your computer without any fear or risk involved, and zero stress.
Even great mathematicians get basic math wrong if they have to make a show out of it, which is clearly not the same as doing your job in a quite working place with no expectations.
So that and the question is misleading, reading it slighty wrong and you simply get it wrong as you didnt understand the question.
If you would write the actual question in math symbols, people would be WAY more likely to get it, so its not really a math problem, its understanding the text and translating it into math beforehand.
No 1st grader ( 5-6yr olds ) ever learns square roots - ever (unless they're math prodigies, in which case they're not even in 1st grader anyways). The only operations 1st graders learn is addition and subtraction. Epic fail on your part to suggest otherwise.
If you asked the audience to guess the answer an average of 25% of the audience would get it right from pure luck, and one of the polls got 22%. Hahaha
american education system forces people to write haikus that they will never use within their life, but does not require elementary level math as portrayed by the level of math in most college entrance exams
Elementary school math is not standardized. I can't really see much practical use for this kind of math, so I am not surprised it is not taught universally. Also judging america based on the pool of the studio audience that goes to Who Wants to Be a Millionare post Regis era is just silly. That would have been a skewed demographic even when that show was popular.
It's just a dumb question to ask the audience. Probably the vast majority of them didn't bother to start to try out adding square numbers in their heads until they were suddenly asked to provide the answer and then they had about three seconds. How is anyone surprised they didn't come up with the right answer?
I am not sure what they are teaching kids these days but my Math teachers never mentioned these oh so important pythagoras triples. Do you have any justification for why that should be common knowledge? It seems like extraneous math trivia that serves no purpose.
sneakyrabbits It's addition and multiplication... We learned all the skills necessary to figure this question out by 6th grade. A+B=C... A/B= 1/4/9/16/25/36/49 C= 25/16/36/49
A or B can't be 1, not enough slope change. (16-1=15, not a square, ~3.9) A or B can't be 2, not enough slope change. (16-4=12, not a square, ~3.5) A can be 9 though. (16-9=7, not a square, ~2.6) (25-9=16, is a square) As long as the smallest answer available - A/B > square of smallest answer - 1, the projected answer is not large enough. Tada there is your answer, A and B are 9 and 16 and C is 25
With numbers that small, the practical method is trial and error. Just count up squares - there aren't too many possibilities: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. Now, which two of those sum to an answer choice? It's pretty easy to quickly eliminate: 1, 36, 49, leaving you with only 4, 9, 16, 25. The 9 and 16 jump out at that point. I'm really surprised at the audience polls. The average American is worse at math than I previously realized.
Ilan Dor 2.4^2 + 3.2^2 = 16. Both 2.4 and 3.2 are smaller than 4. 4^2 = 16, thus, 16 is a valid answer. Go take your country-insulting bullshit somewhere else buddy. Mathematics is great :3
(Nowhere in the question did it say that the values had to be whole numbers)
masterkevkev Thank you for informing me of the greatness of mathematics, tough guy. Somehow, I managed to earn three STEM degrees without ever realizing it. As for your fractional example, I must admit, I didn't think of that - which apparently makes me worse at math than the 50% of the audience who did. I'm sure it's precisely what the contestant had in mind, too.
Ilan Dor Then don't be pointing fingers, you stereotypical fuck. ^-^
All of those answers (except for 49... I don't know a combination for that) would've been correct answers. It's just the wording of the question that fucked it all up :l
They should have made the question "Which Perfect Squared Integer can be made by combining the sum of 2 square integers smaller than the number required to make the Perfect Squared Number?" Although that's a large question - it'd throw all of the multiple possibilities out the window (assuming you placed only one number that fits the question's rules, and the other 3 to be bogus).
:3 - It needs to be defined as a Perfect Square Number. Theoretically the first 3 answers are correct but D is incorrect. But you'll learn that differently past high-school c: ... I've already annoyed my head with finding out the calculations and fixing what people have said. I am not going to continue pointing out how wrong the question was and why the answer was not the only correct one.
***** In every comment section there's always someone looking to interpret the question in the most obscure way to sound like a smartass. This question was properly worded, square numbers are generally agreed to be squares of integers, stop wasting time with people who are out to prove something.
masterkevkev Wrong. By academic consensus, "square numbers" are defined as perfect square integers only. Therefore, there was no need to specify. I notice you have failed to reply to others who have pointed out your foolishness. I suppose all your bravado and pseudo-intellectual failings are humiliating enough to keep you from ever returning to this video again. In your own words: "don't be pointing fingers", you idiotic fuck. ^-^
Also to point out.... people get highly confused with "Square numbers." Square numbers are basically numbers that have roots of an integer, or whole number if you call it. examples of this are 1 (1^2) 4 (2^2) 9 (3^) and 16 (4^2). But then again, you have to figure out what the question is talking about. And that's when not knowing math can cost you $15,000...
"Sum" is such a common synonym for "whole," "group," and "total" that some people do not automatically think of it in its mathematical definition. Including me. 😅
@Alex Santos That's not the question, and it was perfectly clearly stated. People keep saying they thought it was a product but it says SUM right in the question. How anyone could possible gloss over the word "sum" in a maths problem worth 16K, I don't understand.
That is a retarded assessment of the reality. Exactly how many first generation immigrants do you think the US actually has? That has nothing at all to do with why Americans are viewed as being dumb.
Solaniin Well we could start with the people running our country and then you might consider reality TV. Two pretty valid reasons to think our country is unintelligent.
Josh Griebel The people running our country? Dude, tell me one country that doesn't have dumb politicians. I can't believe people take reality TV seriously, it's all scripted.
Americans will continue to vote against their bet interests, willingly. They eat very poorly, again, willingly and knowingly. Most Americans want socialist policies, but when asked what they think about socialism, they all say it is bad. Uniformed. Then you have one of the highest religious percentages of any developed country, which is a big one for me. Gullible and dumb.
KingOfParrots Whatever, dude. Call me what you want, but I certainly don't see a shortage of schools being build where I live in America nor do I see a shortage of foreigners trying to enter.
Solaniin What your experiences are don't really matter, there's no denying that your first comment was ignorant as hell, and that's why I responded. I don't know what your problem is with foreigners, but you should really widen your views a bit more. You'd consider me a foreigner for example, but I'm not sure I'm the stupid one here because of that...
KingOfParrots I have zero problems with foreigners. The only statement I wanted to make from this video was that Americans should not be perceived as "dumb." I used immigration for a better education in the US as a primary example, but I guess I'm being misunderstood.
The audience did him dirty, even if he knew the answer was 25 see that majority of the Audience chose 16 would make him question himself and chose the wrong answer.
Audience clapping after he lost, looks like audience wanted him to lose and they intentionally voted wrong and now they're celebrating their victory... 😂😂
Imagine he being in India and his parents watching this and saying "That's why we asked you to choose maths and do engineering"
17 likes
Replies (2)
VEGETA IN RAIN2022-10-11 01:48:59 (edited 2022-10-11 01:49:54 )
Even i got the answer wrong probably coz of my bad English i thought the question said squaring a no. Then squaring it again to get answer but when i know that it was simple Pythagoras i feel really stupid and dissaponited in myself
I'm too a indian and my name is also Krishna
1 like
Jar Jar Sphinx2022-11-06 21:58:24 (edited 2022-11-06 21:59:17 )
The trick is to choose math in grade school. You can’t skip it as a child and decide to take it up in college, but that’s the American way.
Should have phrased it "sum of two squared non-zero integers." All of them are sums of two numbers squared with infinite solutions. Besides that, 0^2 + 4^2 = 16, 0^2 +5^2 = 25 (in addition to 3^2+3^2), 0^2 + 6^2 = 36, 0^2 + 7^2 = 49. All are correct with the way this is phrased.
Sum of 2 SMALLER square numbers, if you use 0^2 you have to use the same number as the square root of the number itself so the question is phrased right and have only one sulution ^^
***** The question doesn't ask for the sum of two numbers squared; rather, it asks for the sum of two square numbers. This distinction is very important! The definition of a square number is an integer which is the square of an integer, so the question actually does rule out irrational solutions.
Simon Liljeqvist How do you define "smaller" though? If you take it to mean an absolute value of smaller magnitude then you are correct. If you take it to mean to the left of the original number on the number line then they are all solutions. This is because (-4)^2+0^2=16 etc.
kobeballer Your objection doesn't work. A square number is the square of an integer.
Even using (-4)^2 and 0^2, the two square numbers you are working with are 16 and 0 (not -4 and 0). And 16 is not smaller than 16 no matter which definition of smaller you use.
No it shouldn't have and you're wrong. Square numbers are derived by mulitiplying two of the exact same numbers. So you obviously don't know what a square number is
@TerminatedMist Its a question of 2-3 seconds only, no need to take such long time. I guess you studied pythagoras theorem 2 years ago so it should be easy for you
memorizing isn't doing math, it's just memorizing. it's not a general rule that n^2+(n+1)^2=(n+2)^2 for n...natural number. it holds for n=3 but thats all. still easy even if you try every possible combination.
@Dragokingprost people with neurodiveragent brains exist too, for them things like this may take some time to process, no matter how easy it is. so your statement sees incorrect "it should take 2-3 seconds"
I don't understand why the audience is voting without knowing the answer. Maybe because they want him to lose or because they stay anonymous and don't care about others. I don't know and I will never get it
I gotta be honest, I did not understand that question very well. It makes a little more sense after reading the comments, but I’ve been out of school for over 15 years and was never great at math to start with.
bro Im taking calc BC and am one of the smartest people at math in my school and I got it wrong. I thought it was 36 because 6 was the sum of 3 and 3 but apparently that wasn't even the question. In my defense, no one uses the term square numbers
I'm 29 years old, despite hating math with a burning passion, I didn't used square numbers to anything until now for this video, so I can feel your frustration,
but, no amount of knowledge surpass a good heart, you can be seen as a genius everywhere you go but if you treat everyone with disrespect because they don't have the same knowledge as you, you'll be treated as a fool,
so it's never too late to relearn something you struggle with, you still have time to attain the knowledge that you didn't had in the past, surely it won't turn you into a genius but it'll make you see yourself as one,
@Muối Its a really simple question. The only reason you didnt understand is because you probably didnt know what square numbers meant. If you know what the square numbers, sum, and smaller means answering the question should be a piece of cake.
They specified "smaller" square numbers, making the need for the word "non-zero" unnecessary. After all, if you try 4^2 + 0^2, you have 16 as an addend which is not smaller than sum 16.
Jarrod0067 0 x 0 is very much defined, and it is indeed 0. I think you're confusing multiplication with division here. 0/0 is not defined. But 0 x 0 = 0^2 is defined and is equal to 0.
MuffinsAPlenty May I note that 0/0 is, in fact, defined. However, we cannot determine its value, so we say it's indeterminate. For example, if you do the following: Let x = 0/0 Multiply both sides of the equation by 0/1 to cancel out the bottom 0, since ((x/y)(y/1) = x): x(0/1) = (0/0)(0/1) You get the following: 0x = 0 While attempting a similar proof by stating x/0 = y (x ~= 0) will result in a failure, we can surely see that x exists, although it is no specific number; we cannot determine it. Therefore, it's indeterminate.
Connor Weeks I'm doing a Bachelor in Maths and I can say that 0/0 is clearly not defined : it has no definition.
There is a huge problem in your proof : "Let x = 0/0 " has no sense (and therefore your proof too) because it's in the definition of the division that a/b has a sense only if b=/=0. You're manipulating 0/0 has if it was a real number but it's not, it has no sense at all. You're missing something, there are hypotheses and there are conclusions, "for any x, x/0 doesn't exists" is an implied hypothesis when you're using real numbers, it's not a conclusion of any calcul at all.
When you do Algebra you starts to define operation such as + or x and mathematicians have defined 1/x only if x=/=0. Same thing you can't divide vectors, there is no definition, it doesn't exists.
a square is when all sides are equal. in the case of square with length of sides = 0... The square is not there. so saying 0 is a square number is not true.
they asked two SMALLER square numbers.....wheres as 4,5,6,7 are not smaller ..rather they are equal. only B is the correct answer because 25 is the square of sum of smaaler numbers which are 4 and 3... that's it.
Ralph Strocchia While some definitions of square number do not include 0, you will find that there are definitions of square number which include 0. Wikipedia and Wolfram MathWorld, for example, use a definition of square number in which 0 is a square number.
Did he even try ? Is that his best excuse, calling it 'pressure' for not even trying to understand and do the math? In other words, he's dumb, and so is the audience.
How is that even an appropriate question for 16k? Sure, the guy is under pressure but that still shouldn't prevent him from doing a simple calculation. It's not like the clock is ticking. Just take a minute and start doing the fucking math.
except it's not an actual use for maths, what I mean is that he didn't need to answer that in his daily life, it was a programme in which you can only win money, and lose money that you never had
tbh even with this wording I found this a pushover, but that’s probably since I’m really interested in math. Someone who didn’t really take interest in math would probably be confused under this pressure. But I gotta say, that audience must either be extremely ignorant or just trolling. No way only 30% got it right unironically.
American republicans elected Trump, Lauren Boebert, Maggot Taylor Greene, etc. There is no level of stupidity this country is bounded by. They're about to elect a former football player to the senate who is so brain dead he literally can't create coherent sentences.
I’ve always been good at math, but I haven’t taken a math class in over 5 years. I definitely forgot about 3 4 5 thing. I also completely misinterpreted the question lol
@Nikith TN not only they but most of the county's people think that we indians are dumb. Because the truth is he have a very small ratio of people who are smart as compared to dumb people. I agree in maths our average intellect is good but maths isn't everything. As far as all over intelligence is concerned many people in India are dumb. And we also have some of the brightest minds. What i am trying to say is india is quite extreme in this department. We either have very intelligent people or very dumb people. Quantity of average intellect is comparatively low than usual. Which gets our average intellect lower
@Pseudo Liberal even if we agree that an average person is smart here it doesn't make a difference. Because at the end that smartness isn't benefiting our nation as a whole is it? What's the point of being so smart if we as a nation can't use it to improve our standard of living. India is a underdeveloped country as stated by the UN. It's here in our schools that tells us the lie that we are considered as a developing country. We ourselves consider us as that. The world thinks otherwise. We literally have to have toilet advertisement on our television. How are we smart if we literally need a toilet banao aur use karo advertising in 2018.
Oh another example of indians being smart in general and proving it on a global level when they get the required resources will have to be ISRO. Reaching mars in such a low budget and on the first attempt is not your everyday common incident. And that's just one of their many accomplishments that they achieved in much much lower budget than anyone can even imagine.
@Pseudo Liberal but if you actually wanna compare then the USA has far more accomplishments than we ever had. There is a reason it's a super power currently and we are not. I am not bashing our people. It's just facts nothing else. This intelligence is useless if we cannot use it to help our own people at the most basic level. All that ISRO and everything comes after. The base of a building is made first not the terrace. We still have a very high poverty rate. And illiteracy rate. Sexual discrimination. How exactly have our collective intelligence helped us in this situation? The amount of such problems in India is pathetically high. I know you don't have anything to say about it that's why u ain't answering. Because this is the truth not my personal opinion.
@Orion pax wow, you aren't the smart one afterall eh? Let me simplify it for you. money is everything(in terms of development and technology), if you can't understand that then you need to read how advanced technology india had when it was the golden bird. People risked their lives by travelling far on the ocean just to find India. Figure the reason for that yourself. You can't just make raw materials and money by magic for R&D. You need money, but India's money is gone with the British Empire. Smartness can't be measured in terms of advanced tech of a nation, but yes there is indeed a way to measure that and its called competition. Wherever you are in the world, you'll mostly find the fact that indians always score higher than others, and they pass all interviews and get jobs as against these people from your advanced nations. Again as anyone from any country is reading this, I'm not putting down any nation here(ok maybe I'm putting down Britain but that's fine with me), I'm only giving statistics for an argument.
As for crimes and sexual discrimination, go and get your facts checked. Even your superpower usa has more crimes and rapes than india, britain as well, and many other "advanced countries" Oh and don't even get me started with your Islamic countries. Women don't even have basic human rights in those nations let alone other facilities. It has nothing to do with smartness.
@Pseudo Liberal ok so tell me this smart guy. If we indians were so smart how come we got bested by the britishers? And not only britishers but many others like french, Portuguese etc. Lol. All that smartness didn't work when fighting for our own fucking human rights. Haha. It took 190 fucking years? I don't think it's smart if you are so slow to make a formidable resistance. And for the matter of fact we didn't even win our freedom by fighting back. It was a petition for freedom by giving our men in the world war to fight for England. Now u say if i am smart or what lol. Apparently we weren't smart enough to protect our so called golden age. Haha what a fucking joke.
@Orion pax look man, I'm going to give you a strong advice. You should move to your masters that you consider superior and work for them as a slave. I'm pretty sure that's your dream because for you, you are just an interior being with zero knowledge. Now, I'm going to say this one last time because i know your inferior mentality (or the Pakistani brain, I'm pretty sure of this theory because no indian will be as stupid as you) isn't going to digest what i speak once again. So, invaders right? Since when invasion ke liya smartness jruri ho gayi? You're justifying enslaving a civilisation on tip of sword and guns as being smart? So if i decide to point guns on someone's family from behind, ask them to be my slave or else I'll torture them and kill them, and afterwards destroy and demolish them from both inside and out so they can't fight back, then I'll be called a smart person and that family will be dumb? Just wow, you really are a product of a brainwashed system. Anyway, keep on going, i don't have time to waste on your nonsensical crap that has zero validity.
@Pseudo Liberal u just proved that you are a stereotype. How can u assume i am a pakistani or whatever. Pakistan ke alawa aur koi muslim country nahi hai kya world mei? See how less of a brain you have lol. I am an indian and i am proud to be one but it doesn't mean I'll ignore the truth or the facts. Unlike you or many others. Tum jaise logo ke wajah se hi India ki average intelligence kam hai lol. You are comparing a nation to a normal family. Some brain you have. Jake doctor ko dikhao. A nation is run by a group of people and is required to make good political decisions. Unlike a small family. Hum indians itne chutiye the ki bahar walo ko ghusne diye. There is no second thought about it so stop fucking arguing. And stop thinking that every muslim is a pakistani. Is that how small you think the world is? There is a big world across our border. If you don't know about it maybe your living under a fucking rock. Number of muslim countries are second largest after Cristian dominant countries. Tera smartness toh isse hi samajh aata hai ki tughe India aur Pakistan ke alawa aur kuch nahi samajh aata. Move on dude
@Orion pax there is a specific reason why I called you a Pakistani, and there's a word called "theory" written on the comment, which probably you don't know the meaning of, hence the reply. Secondly, family and individual example, as expected your small narrow minded brain didn't understand the point of it, you can't think beyond your box. it's fine if you want to call me a stupid, I don't mind because neither you nor anyone on the internet knows who am i and what i have achieved so calling me stupid here isn't going to affect my real self anyway. On the other hand though, i have, with examples proven your narrow minded mentality wrong, but ofcourse it's too small and oppressed to understand and digest them. Comparing an invasion to someone's intelligence, that's only as far as you can think with your intellect, So it really is pointless to talk with a brick wall like you, don't care about your obvious response, notifications will be off.
@Pseudo Liberal dude let it be you will never understand because you don't want to. Fine you like to live in this shit it's ur choice. People are migrating outside not because they don't love India but because this country doesn't have anything to offer them for their hard work. But i think you are the kind of worm who likes to live in a gutter. Fine suit yourself. I don't think i can invest more of my time to have a talk with you cause you won't understand. Intelligence is accounted by measuring different aspects of how our brain work and it's not just limited to a single type of smartness like maths. We are behind in many fields of technology, education, standard of living we are ahead in poverty. If we were really so smart we would have formed an excellent government to handle all this stuff. Don't argue with me you can't change this fact no matter how hard you try. Living here is a different thing and like to live here id a different thing. You like it because you are a rat who likes a shit hole.
AsaD Ali the first step of improving upon something is to recognize the fact that it needs improvement. Most of the people actually don't recognize. So it has to be pointed out. I was pointing it out. And as the hadith says i must either talk good or be silent. But the thing is i never said anything bad. I said the truth. There is a very very big difference between talking bad and talking the truth. Why will i talk bad about the country. I love my country because i was born on it's soil. I just addressed the people of the country. Not the country. There is a difference bro
@HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY obviously that doesn't mean i am calling the country to be a gutter. The people who should be responsible to keep the country clean aren't doing their job. That's why it is how it is right now. For what's it worth. I try my best to keep my country clean from my behalf. But most of the people don't and also the municipal corporation doesn't do as good of a job. That's what i meant. And obviously how the hell can it be countries fault? It's the fault of the people of the country
@Orion pax i would like to tell you one thing. I totally understand that india could be much better than it is at the moment, we have a high illiteracy rate and being one of the most populated nation, its a big problem that majority is illiterate. But being a citizen of this country, its my responsibility to make my country better. I was borned here, i was raised here and this country gave me everything i needed to make my life better and i am not the one who is going to run away just because this country has a lot of problems. I am going to return the favour being a valuable citizen of the country and do anything i could possibly do to make my country better. So rather than complaining, which never helps btw, lets do something to make our country better.
@HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY i never complained. Because I never started first. Someone else did and i was just stating that person why he's wrong in a certain sense. I never started myself complaining about what's going on in this country. And i understand when you say you will serve this country because it has offered you what you have right now. But that doesn't mean everyone has to. What i mean to say is it totally depends on the situation. Your situation is obviously totally different than mine. Everyone's situation is different. If you can strive here then you should do it but many people can't even have a job which they deserve in this country. I am studying engineering. And it's the bitter truth that engineers don't get nearly good of a job as they should. What the hell will i do if I don't even have job that can satisfy my needs. I obviously have to have a family of my own in the future. I want my kids to have a better life. It's not like other countries pay more. It's just that indian companies pay less. They don't value their employees as much as they should
@Orion pax btw my situation is similar to you bro. I am from a middle class family and pursuing btech and i do have a family to take care of... Everyone does. And i know its difficult to find job.. but again complaining is not going to help. Its completely upto you if you want to move to some other country like USA because they are going to know your worth and pay you more. But please, India is not a shithole or a gutter. We are happy here and i love my country more than any other
@HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY I think i was wrong about some stuff about saying that it's a gutter. That was not an appropriate way to write a comment or any conversation for that matter. I am sorry guys and I'll not do that again.
Indians place near dead last on international competitive test scores. Our national institutions of excellence produce cheap labour for western companies, that's about all there is to it. As of right now, Indians are one of the most impoverished and ignorant population on the planet. Americans are quite literally the most sophisticated, on average. Your ignorance is the source of your misapprehension of your own grandeur and btw the golden bird nonsense is fabricated mythology by the retards who keep India the open toilet that it is. We could have perhaps made some progress but that would require that we acknowledge just how retarded we actually are but it won't happen so the Indians with some sense left will keep running away As if the devil himself was chasing them. You ignorant lot have turned India into an economic prison for those who have more courage and the ability to reform themselves. Congratulations.
@Orion pax don't apologize to these morons, they will have already spent nearly a century in the dirt, believing themselves to be residing in a palace. So long as their mind proliferates in India the truly productive and courageous will have no recourse except running away.
@Orion pax abrar khan oh boy so many wrong facts. Britishers took over India because they were stronger not because they were smarter. Before Islamic and western invasion India was the leader in wealth and knowledge. People form far away countries came to India to gain knowledge and to trade items. India never had to attack another country because we already had everything. Meanwhile Britishers were on a spree attacking America, Africa, Australia, etc. They had strong army meanwhile Indians had a pretty basic army. Any street thug can beat up bill gates but that doesn't mean he can create his own multinational company.
@Cybercop oh boy oh boy do you even know the ratio of the British invaders to the indian population? It was 1:10000. It's not even arguable that it required more than just power (guns and weapons) to keep such an overwhelming number of people under their command. Intelligence has many aspects. Not just theoretical intelligence is called intelligence. We are good at that i know. But we are way behind in political intelligence and that shows still to this day.
@Cybercop if they really were all that stronger they would never have needed our help in the world war thanks to which we have our freedom. That shows that the britishers used our human resources better than ourselves
abrar khan My boyfriend is coming back home today from being a coach for a research company in India and he said these were the dumbest people he ever saw, couldn't do the smallest task even after having it explained for 15 minutes and gave up immediately if there was a smallest obstacle like a slower internet connection.
@DK and comparing harvard and indian kids. You have not done some research about it. Give me an article and some study which validated your point. I would love to read that
HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY Name one Indian college that is better than Harvard or any college that is better than the 10 top colleges in the USA. In addition, most of the students in these colleges are Americans not Indians
HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY who created apple? An American. Who created amazon? An American. Who created google? An American. Who created Facebook? An American . Who created JP Morgan? An American
Austin Hernandez nice counter. I don't have anything to say about it. But I can see your level of thinking. That's completely racist. But I ain't gonna blow a racism whistle. I have a lot of other better things to do.
India is best. Talented people are thrown away. Money is preferred over skill. We lack money so we never get opportunity to show the world what we can do. Besides this there is casteism, there is an environment of showing off where everyone follows the same trend for showing we're better than our siblings, our neighbors. Our country will never develop. All the schemes, agenda that are for country development, that money goes into the pockets of the ones who are carrying the burden of development. Yes this country is good for politicians.
If indians are smarter why don't they know how a shower works
This isn't even just an unfounded racist stereotype I have never met an indian that doesn't smell like straight up ass and BO unless they've lived in America long enough and figured out that this isn't socially acceptable.
Also indians that have established a citizenship in the United States are Americans so if you want to prove that people are india are smarter than Americans you can't use them as an example.
abrar khan but are the "dumb" people really dumb or just poorly educated? That bloke who worked out the mass of black holes was Indian. I remember him as Chandra but I think that was a shortened version of his surname. Had to battle to be taken seriously and eventually won Nobel.prize.
For some reason, the way I read the question threw me off, not the way it was worded. I don't know the proper wording for it, but basically I was thinking something like this: some value squared, or x^2 also has 2 of the same smaller numbers that when squared, each equal the original value, or x. This is why I originally thought it was A. Dyslexia had kicked in hard for me, then I finally read the question properly and understood what it said, and understood why it was B.
Dude saaaaaammee I thought 16^1/2 = 4 and 4÷2 is 2 and because 2^2 = 4 it must mean its 16 XD idk why but the even numbers looked too nice to pass up ☺
undead890 Yeah, the question is messed up, the sum is not a product, if you were to change sum to product then it would make more sense. Tbh thats just fucking stupid.
Ah that's where I saw that trio. Pythagorean triples. I knew what the answer was without having to think about it but couldn't recall why the numbers were special.
i could say the same about you 45%+23%+10% its not 100%, so obviously at least some people know about that but they get the multiplier wrong, u get the addition , so u case is more severe.
if you´re trying to teach the pythagoras theorem, your late...only if you tried when I was 5. Mathematics is my beach, and I also know that there´s no need for the pythagoras reciprocal in this occasion. Just basic arithmetics.
0 likes
No Name2017-12-11 22:31:08 (edited 2017-12-11 22:32:22 )
e.mc2 is that how you even use the word reciprocal? Clearly this has links to Pythagoras when numbers like 3,4,5 and 6,8,10 are frequently thrown around. Pythagoras is exactly what the guy asks: two smaller sides which are squared into a bigger number squared.
You probably know more about maths than I do. I just became 16 and the most complicated thing I've probably done in maths is triangles within a 3d shapes using cosine rule, sin rule, and geometrical proofs. I'm at a stage where I don't learn much more and it's all refinement before I go into my next year where I'll start learning new things like calculus. I don't need to be a genius to tell you that Pythagoras theorem has links here.
if the poor guy was not able to answer such a basic question, how do you think he would know anything about pythagoras theorem, that´s my point, there was no need for the pythagoras in this situation.
No Name2017-12-11 22:40:39 (edited 2017-12-11 22:41:53 )
e.mc2 Who said there is need for Pythagoras? I'm trying to say that Pythagorean triples would make this easier and there are links. Most people learn a few sets. It's like learning the trigonometric values: sin 30 being 1/2, tan 45 being sqroot3. It's just useful when you have no calculator.
0 likes
No Name2017-12-11 22:47:26 (edited 2017-12-11 22:48:07 )
e.mc2 using the word reciprocal? I don't know if that was an attempt to look clever or I don't know something. Last time I checked a reciprocal was turning a number into a fraction and flipping it.
e.mc2 weird site. I've got a book on calculus. I'm going to start reading it in July when all my exams are done. GCSEs are important so I cannot use time on learning things outside my syllabus.
About the recyprocal word, at least in the way I learned (Europe), we have always called it recyporcal, I don’t know how you call it in USA, (if you’re from there), and it’s basically what combinations a right triangle can have.
EarthClad There are only two explanations for your answer: first one, you're too young to know this; second one, you're part of the croud (aka you're american).
Gereld The Cat2021-11-17 04:41:29 (edited 2021-11-17 04:46:32 )
The wording on the question is kind of confusing. I also thought it was 16, until I read a comment here and realized what the question was actually asking.
For the people still confused, here's your explanation: It's not asking for the square root of the square root. It's asking for the answer that has two numbers that both add up to get the answer and also have a square root. In this case, 16+9=25.
@Elirei i think a lot of people, myself included, went down that train of thought because we glossed over the keyword "sum" and were thinking about "products" and that following that we made some wrong kind of deduction
@bowlchamps37 It's because I have never heard anyone call squares as "square numbers" in my country so I interpreted it as "squared numbers" as in something like x^2. this resulted in me thinking 3^2+4^2=x^2. Looking back now, I realize the question was very simple.
Nah, the incredibly flawed schooling system in America is a failure currently unless if you're talking about these fancy pieces of papers at the end which does averagely make you earn more money in a lifetime. This is more like why we should be committed to a lifetime self-education.
Dissenting Tirade yeah, I’m talking about old school. I don’t like the idea of getting triggered and safe spaces, which makes those types of people soft.
Jim giannou me too dude i thought it was 16....like sqaure of 4 is 16 ans 4 itself is a square of 2 right? So the sum is 2+2=4 and 4×4=16....hahaha..i went too deep...i understood the question completely different....
the question is kind of badly worded because it doesn't specify that the smaller square numbers be integers. 25 is still a pretty obvious answer, though.
PutItAway101 maybe, but most people aren't going to be familiar with the exact definition of a square number - hence the question isn't as clear as it could be. and i'm in class right now, thank you very much.
Ben F Here's a newsflash - the entire point of a maths question is to see if you know maths. If you fail to understand very basic maths terms like "square number" ( and half the morons on these comments even manage to misunderstand "sum" and somehow think that's the fault of the wording),. then you failed the question. The question is as clear as it needs to be for someone who has an extremely basic understanding of maths. If they fail to understand the question, they failed the question. That is the point.
PutItAway101 i literally said that i would have phrased the question slightly differently, had i been the one writing it. that is all. i'm not saying this guy's education wasn't lacking, or that he deserved to get the question right.
"the question is kind of badly worded because it doesn't specify that the smaller square numbers be integers. 25 is still a pretty obvious answer, though."
Something tells me you don't know what "literally" means any more than you know what "square number" means.
PutItAway101 literally is widely accepted as being a form of emphasis as well as defining something which is literally true. do you go around telling people it's fort not for-tay as well?
i guess i don't know what a square number is; i'll admit i wasn't aware a square number needed to be the product of an integer with itself. a quick google tells me that square numbers are non-negative, but i honestly didn't know that. i was under the impression that -16 was just as much a square number as 16. i'm pretty good at maths, but i've never needed to know the definition of a square number because so few problems that i deal with involve such simple numbers. again, i'm not arguing that the guy didn't deserve to get the question right, i just made a passing comment that the inclusion of the word 'integer' could have made things a little bit clearer.
Ben F Unfortunately you're a moron. And what on earth are you talking about "fort" and "for-tay"??? I can only guess that you mean "forte". Why would I care how anyone pronounces a French word if they're using it in English? That is a nonsensical comparison, which you entirely made up, because you have no actual argument.. How, in your mind, does your imagined scenario about correcting variant pronunciations of a foreign word have any possible comparison to you ignorantly mis-using an English word in a way that destroys its meaning and makes you look retarded. Which you seem to be. And, once again, you seem to think it's necessary to say "integer". when anyone who knows basic maths terminology knows that a "square number" by definition can only be an integer. Dipshit, it's a maths question. You're supposed to know maths to be able to answer it. If you don't know what "Square number" means... you failed the question! Put it this way, if there's a question "what is the square root of 9", and you don't know what a square root is, you failed the question. DUH.
PutItAway101 i referenced it because you're nitpicking. loads of people use 'literally' as a way of emphasising what they're saying, just like loads of people say 'for-tay' instead of 'fort' when pronouncing forte, or how most people refer to an initialism as a type of acronym, despite them being different things. my point is that using literally to mean something that isn't, technically, literal is 100% fine because people understand what you're talking about.
as i've said, like, six times, i don't actually care about this question. i think he deserved to get it wrong. i'm also going to stop replying now because i'm bored.
retarded isn't a particularly nice word to use, by the way, and just makes you sound uneducated.
Ben F The absolute value? Well, that would work, but it would be only one possibility out of numerous other ones (e.g. sum of real and imaginary value) and it wouldn't be a (strict) total ordering anymore because different elements can have the same absolute value (and addition and multiplication don't follow certain rules in relation to order either). Think of the complex numbers as points in e.g. the gaussian plane, there is no inherent order(ing) in there (just like BTW different distance definitions are possible).
o_O well, maybe, but when you talk about the linear 'size' of a number, you're typically talking about its absolute. i wouldn't say it's a problem that two different numbers can have the same 'size'. similarly, if i have nineteen gold bars and nineteen sticks, i have the same amount of each but they are different.
Ever heard of domain and range? "Number" - unless specified the domain of, is defined as any finite constant quantity not subject to surreal or hyper-real properties. This includes irrational numbers.
Looks like someone needs to take a higher class - rather than instructing others to go to the ones he's taken (5th grade, I assume).
And I won't even comment on the lack of social intelligence.
***** Hmmm where's he gone? The coward's deleted both his comments. Must've realised how stupid he looked. What did the moron say about "reporting"? Comment was gone before I got a chance to laugh at it. Is he going to go to the Internet Police? LOL. What a pathetic excuse for a human being. EDIT - I see now that the crybaby has blocked me, and I can't see his comments while I'm logged in...
***** Nope, they're not there in my view. Maybe there's some kind of crybaby mode where he's blocked me and I can't see him? LOL. EDIT - that seems to be the case. I checked the comments while not logged in to youtube, and there are 31 replies including his laughable "reported", now that I'm viewing this while logged into youtube as me, there are 28, and he's gone. Pussy mode fully engaged!
***** Jesus Christ, the idiots are still rolling in. Instead of dishonestly quoting half of what I said, why not give the whole thing : ""Square Number", by definition of the term, means a square of an INTEGER. The domain, you ignorant fucktard, is by definition always INTEGERS." Since this clown was trying to claim there was some ambiguity about the domain of Square Numbers, I pointed out that the definition of a square number is "the square of an integer". Therefore ( are you getting this, Einstein???) the domain of Square Numbers is always Integers. You, due to either dishonesty or poor reading comprehension, set up a ludicrous straw man argument as If I claimed all domains of all functions are integers!!! That is just spectacularly retarded and dishonest of you. Of course there are domains with irrational and compex numbers, you fuckwit, but none of them have anything to do with Square Numbers, beause a Square Number is a square of an integer I am not "always rude", if someone is wrong in a polite way, they'll get a polite correction from me. If they're wrong and in their unjustified arrogance they insult me when I'm the one who's right, as the previous fucktard did, and as you did, of course they're going to get the response they deserve. You morons bring it upon yourselves, not by your stupidity, but by your attitude.
IAmGunzNoob a prime number can be written as the sum of two squares iff it is congruent to 1 mod 4. Any odd integer can be written as the sum of two squares iff every prime congruent to 3 mod 4 occurs to an even power (then the even integers are accounted for by dividing by two and getting that sum of squares if it exists and multiplying by 1^2+1^2 for each power of two to get another sum of two squares by a particular formula i wont write out though it is simple or by applying gaussian integers and noting that the product of two conjugates is the conjugate of the product and the product of two conjugates is the sum of two square since it is the norm in the gaussian integers)
GameDogLeader21 Of course, but we're not talking about "numbers squared", we're talking about "square numbers" which is a specific term with a specific meaning which you should have learned in school, and by definition it means a square of an integer. Which is what the question asks. DUH. I think I've explained this every time I've commented. Can none of you people read?
PutItAway101 Ok, I understand now xD. See I never went to school. Im completely self taught. So forgive me for not understanding that just because "Squared" is in a different spot it means something different.
PutItAway101 I think what you're referring to is a perfect square, a number that is a whole integer with its square root also being a whole integer as well, but it would be safe to assume on a question like this that they are talking about perfect squares
At first glance I would agree but considering it is a tv show they can't expect people to know terms like modulus and sig num etc so yeah it isnt worded that great but neither are many of the problems at this level of maths so it is nothing out of the ordinary.
To me, the question with the answer choices somewhat imply B is the correct answer. Its sum can be written as 3^2 + 4^2 which represents a Pythagorean triplet that is also known as the 3-4-5 triangle. Before I looked at the answer choices, I predicted one of the answers would represent some kind of Pythagorean triplet. That is why B was blatantly the correct answer.
***** I read through these comments wondering when someone would mention the simple Pythagorean triples and finally the last comment I see mentions it lol. One guy tried to give a Number Theory argument earlier trying to explain the answer, I guess he wanted to sound smart
PutItAway101 Exuse me, but you look very silly complaining about his knowledge of the word "literally" when you're the one that used it in a wrong way in one of your previous comments.
Pay close attention where you said the following:
"No you didn't, what you literally said was
"the question is kind of badly worded because it doesn't specify that the smaller square numbers be integers. 25 is still a pretty obvious answer, though." ".
The world "literally" is used when you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said, and in that comment you're using the word "literally" for something that a person exactly said, which makes you give the word "literally" the wrong use.
Ben F In mathematics, we do not say 12i is "smaller" then 25. The imaginary number is not "ordered".(It was proven. I can prove it now if you want.) That is, there does not exist any relation as "bigger" or "smaller" between them.
adverb 1. in the literal or strict sense: What does the word mean literally? 2. in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally. 3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy: The city was literally destroyed. 4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually: I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.
As you can see, none of the definitions refer in saying what something exactly said. You're a very hateful person, do you have like problems in life or something because what you just love doing is trying to make others like complete idiots showing off your "intelectual capacity", I can already tell that probably few people like you...
The imaginary number ( the imaginary number is a+bi where a,b are rational and the square of i is -1 ) is not ordered, that is, there does not exist any relation as "bigger" or "smaller" between them, so 12i is not smaller then 25.
ClaudiBAM BAM And which part of "word for word" are you having trouble understanding? OK we've established my use of the word is correct, now can you tell me where there's a definition that matches your claim that it means "you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said"? Oh look, there is none.
簡昱睿 oh, i see! i'm 'majoring' in engineering (although i don't call it majoring bc i'm english). and i was talking about absolutes, since that's the only real way that i could think of to compare the 'size' of two complexes in order that 12i and 13 might meet the conditions of the question. i was being very cheaty with the definition of square number, though. 3 and 4 are obviously correct.
ClaudiBAM BAM The reason you need to post it again is because YOU still haven't understood "word for word" yet, even though you've posted it twice. This video really does seems to attract idiots, you're the second person I've humiliated by pointing out that a definition they cite actually dispproves their own position. At least the other clown had the good grace to admit it... And I see you've yet to offer any source for your ludicrous meaning that you entirely made up. I wonder why that is... oh wait, I remember now, it's because IT DOESN'T EXIST.
PutItAway101 Wow, you're definetly an all-in-one idiot. To start off, it's very clear that you're trying to avoid my question that says the following: "Which of those definitions that I gave you apply to your statemtent?" And you're just simply not awsnering it. I wonder why.
BTW, I hope you're smart enough to realise that you can actually prove my wrong and ACTUALLY humiliate me for real if you do awnser the question.
"Second person I've humiliated" You say, learn what humiliating is. I'm bringing up with very good comebacks so you haven't pretty much humilitated me. I think I'm actually making you feel humiliated in your soul...
Stop thinking you're the best around, it's hateful.
Forenamn Efternamn your examples don't make any sense. people use the word 'literally' for things which are not literal while being in full knowledge of the word's original definition. it's an example of hyberbole for additional effect and emphasis, whereas every other example you made, such as the difference between it's and its, is a result of genuine ignorance. ignorance which, by the way, is not in anyway helped by your condescending attitude.
ClaudiBAM BAM And for the third time, you humiliate yourself publicly by not reading or understanding the definition you've posted. You see where you definition says "Word for word"? That is what I did when I quoted what he actually said "word for word", when he was trying to pretend he said something completely different to his actual words. How many times are you going to keep getting up to be knocked down all over again? Why not go away and reconsider your life. Try and find some other argument to have where you have some possibility of winning. You have none here.
PutItAway101 You know, I really don't get why you just don't pick one of the definitions I gave to shut me up, you look like an imbecile honestly.
Insthead of looking the way that I'm telling you to make me stay quiet, no. Looks like it's a very poor way for you because you need to feel like a genius when you do comments, just please, say for once, which of those definitions I gave you apply to your point god...
Forenamn Efternamn Thanks! What I find the most hilarious about all of this, is that these morons keep saying that I think I'm some kind of genius. Uhhh, no, I never claimed to be a genius, I just claimed to have paid attention in maths claths when I was 8 or 9 years old when we learned this. If they think third grade maths is genius level, that says a lot about them. LOL. And this other assclown claims I think I'm "the best around" because I humiliated him by knowing the correct meaning of "literally". That is not considered a world-beating acheivement by anyone except a total moron. They can't grasp that I'm not claiming to be higher than average intelligence or education, I'm just pointing out that they are lower than average. Much lower. Which they combine with an unjustifiably arrogant beligerance. Anyone can make a mistake and get something wrong. They could just come on here and politely question "Are you sure that that is right, becuase I thought...", and they'd get a polite expanation of why it's right But no. Because they're so stupid they don't even realise they're stupid, they march in, all guns blazing, abusively arrogant from the get go, shouting how right they are. That is what makes them morons, as opposed to just being some normal person who's made a simple mistake. They choose to up their stupidity by that extra notch. Obviously they get the response they deserve.
ClaudiBAM BAM Uhh, moron, I've done that three times already. For the FOURTH TIME. Can you see where where your definition says "word for word"? That is what I was doing when I quoted the other idiot word for word. Which part of "word for word" are you having trouble understanding? Is it the "word" or the "for"? And if you don't understand the definition you posted, why did you post it?
PutItAway101 Ohhhhhh, yes, I somehow actually skipped the phrase "word for word" while looking at the meanings I posted. You were just so lazy in placing the complete meaning...
P.S I have to remind you you're actually loosing your genius image!!!!!!
ClaudiBAM BAM You're actually getting more incoherent with every post. But now that we've proved I used the word correctly, any chance of you posting a definition that justifies the meaning that you entirely made up?
ClaudiBAM BAM um...no. PutItAway101 definitely used the word literally correctly.... i think it's you who are not understanding just how much youve proved him right.... Ben F is right in how we use the word "literally" in slang nowadays as a hyperbole (ex: that is literally the most disgusting thing on earth), youve been incorrect in how you think the word is working. what you LITERALLY said was- and i QUOTE (because thats how you make sure what your writing is LITERALLY what the other person said--aka "word for word" as your definition states) [The world "literally" is used when you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said, and in that comment you're using the word "literally" for something that a person exactly said, which makes you give the word "literally" the wrong use.] I'm really sorry but you are incorrect. literally is used when you are exact and absolute. "when you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said" is indeed, an "interpretation" or "guess" or an "assumption".
For example: "You literally just stepped in dog poop" means that, you just stepped in dog poop. versus Person A:"Wow this tastes bad" Person B: "Yeah this cake tastes gross" Person A:" No, I meant the soup" because in this case, from what you HEARD, B ASSUMED A was talking about cake (based on what B THOUGHT A was talking about due to B's interpretation) when A was talking about soup. <--this one was a weaker example but you get the idea.
TechnologyBudda You seem really good at math, but have you ever heard of using a period or a comma to simplify the reading of your great walls of text?
Man, this comment section is so high and mighty. If you have to prove how smart you are by showing that you know the answer to a question that everyone already knows is super easy you aren't as smart as you think
Red You say that like A level maths is challenging. Sure, it's harder than the exams done in the US, but, compared to some other European countries, it's almost unacceptably easy. For example, in some French high schools, they cover all of the material done in maths/further maths A level, as well as all of the real analysis taught in the first year of the maths degree at Cambridge!
When I did maths at Cambridge, I knew someone from Romania that had already covered the entirety of the first year, as well as bits of the second year while they were at school. (But, to be fair, he was exceptionally bright and motivated - I don't think Romanian high schools should get all the credit for that!)
The pressure to succeed is not unique to the UK system/A levels. If anything, I'd say that's one of the few things where it's tougher in the US than here in the UK. As for the timing, the European countries I mentioned cover all the maths we do in the UK (and much more) in an even shorter time frame!
I suppose the only valid point is that the jump from GCSE to A level might be greater than the equivalent jump in other countries (although I'm not sure either way on this - I don't know much about lower school education outside of the UK). Even if this is true, I'd say it's more of an issue with how easy GCSEs are, and how poorly they prepare you for more advanced study, rather than because A levels are tough.
Man, fyukfy is so high and mighty. If you have to prove how superior you are by showing every other commenter their low-mindedness, you aren't as superior as you think.
Or it's just surprising that so many people couldn't answer a simple question. Your comment is an either or fallacy where people either don't point that out or they must be insecure about their own intelligence as if there's no other option.
The math isn't hard, it's trying to decipher what that sentence means that takes time. If the question was phrased in mathematical terms it wouldn't even be a challenge.
Exactly. Choice A (16) is the PRODUCT of two smaller squares, but choice B (25) is the SUM of two smaller squares. But this guy took his time, thought it through, asked the audience, and still got it wrong.
I had my confusion on this one at first because I didn't process it properly, I thought its like the the smaller squares are sum of two numbers and since the choices are perfect square, my assuming ass thought the smaller squares are identical too, then saw the poll and was like wait 16 is wrong?(because its expected he's gonna choose 16 and he's wrong) so I actually grabbed my calculator and reached to the realization that it doesnt have to be identical and got the answer...
I don't understand what's so difficult about the wording. It's so concise and unambiguous. It's also full of mathematical terms so I don't get what you mean by that.
@Manuel71 It's not in mathematical terms at all; it's literally a² + b² = c² which is one of the most common equations, but not everyone who is good at math is as good at understanding english grammatical structures, even native speakers. I applaud anyone who can solve this without confusion, but understanding the difference between english semantics and math is the obvious thing to me here.
@Coalwolf I think by "math terms" you mean variables and equations. Math is not all about those things. Understanding word problems is equally as important.
@Rob W Except 16 is not the product of two smaller squares. The only squares that matter for this question are 1-7, so 1, 4 , 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. You can multiply those by each other until the cows come home, but you'll never get 16 (without using the 16 itself, which is not smaller than 16). You can get 36, though.
@Formless Well, that's only one square, used twice. 'Two smaller squares' implies different squares, but I suppose it is up to interpretation. Unlike the question in the video, lol.
0 does not ever equal 1, if you had to take a test on it, it's just showing that they don't have anything to test you on and have to pretend it's true. 0 = 0 and 1 = 1.
The definition of a square number is an integer whose square is another integer. So by definition it is a whole number and therefore it must be real. There's no fault in the question it was just worded really weird.
@alan smithee You can’t do that. Order requires for every number to be bigger or smaller than every other number, multiple complex numbers have the same magnitude
tricky--I thought 16 (4 squared is 16; 2 squared is 4) but they said SUM not product. I was thinking square root of 16 is 4 and sqrt of 4 is 2 So 25 because 16 is a perfect square and so is 9 and 16+9=25 which is also a perfect square (sqrt of 25 is 5). Easy to misinterpret this question
We go through alot of Pythagoras theorem questions in school. And the most notable one is the 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 so I'd say this was the a very easy question.
@Epicious Why it can't be 4^2 and 4^2 they are also smaller square numbers unless it means they need to be different and then you will need two results to get 25 like your theory. Because all other numbers are not the thing opposite of square only 4 so my guess is you need two results which gives some number (25) and they 4^2 and 3^2 am I right?
@janjutarnji_1 I really don't understand what you're saying. It can't be 4^2 and 4^2 since it will result in 32 which isn't a square number if that's what you meant.
@The Duck All are correct; "maths" is used as a shortened word mathematics in European English along with other English dialects in many former British colonies (Australia, New Zealand, India, etc.), while "math" is the shortened word for mathematics in North American English.
@Manish Prajapati 16 is the square of 4 and 9 is the square of 3. So according to what the question was asking this guy is right and you're wrong. 25= 16+9.
Wow. Most of the people who commented here probably failed highschool. I'm an engineer and the answer is 25. 25 is the sum of two perfect square numbers which are 9 and 16. The square root of 9 is 3 and 16 is to 4. 4x4=16 and 3x3=9.
This is one of those you have to read the question properly or else, people aren't dumb they just misunderstood the question. I misunderstood the question and got the wrong answer until I reread the question and yes 25 is correct
People are complaining and saying the question is phrased terrible? Whata hell!! Its very very clear here. Those numbers you see are squared numbers and one of them had two other squared numbers adding together which produce in this case 25 which is an squared number of 5..
I would say that the fact that 78% of spectators can't do maths is frightening, but most of them probably got the wrong answer by misunderstanding the question, which is even more frightening if you consider that the question is crystal clear.
I can get why they misunderstood it, I thought it was 16 too until I realized it was asking for the SUM of two square numbers, not the PRODUCT. If they were asking which number was the product of two square numbers, 16 would’ve been the correct answer. You’d be surprised how easy basic stuff like that can be to screw up lol
No. Your assumption that we misunderstood the question is overwhelmingly flawed.
Actually, even if we... Or atleast I understood the question, by having a glance at option A, instinctively my mind imagined two numbers 2^2 + 2^2 since both the numbers are same, it had me tricked into looking for a matched pair of a smaller square numbers that if added, may result in one of the given options.
The dude must've surely gone through all the possible matched pair of smaller square numbers but when he ran out of possible answer, (not to mention the huge debuff from the pressure) he resorted to going with the majority, a rather convincing move with no fathomable reason to not go with the audience.
Mans just forgot that he could take any combination of possible smaller square numbers that need not be a matching pair. I have attempted enough silly mistakes while solving/answering math problems myself to know that it do be like that sometimes when you look at certain something and just instinctively a condition sticks to your mind that may eliminate some and even the correct answer out of all the possible set of answers you can come up with in mind or during solving a particular question.
I mean to me the question isnt crystal clear. i admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 cause sometimes even if it seems like they should describe that just like being products they do describe it as sums for other questions. My brain has always been creative with riddles though which makes me good at analytical math but also has been a problem with how applied math teachers indirectly feed in extra information about the scenerio without knowing they do so the real point you should think about is that perhaps this can actually be considered in better ways around how we teach math too
There's a saying "If you don't use it, you lose it." I've been out of high school going on 20 years now and haven't had to use any of that math. I passed math with A's but it's been a while since I studied for a math test. But with a refresher, I would be back at it.
The fact that people suck at word problems in math is such an embarrassment to us as a species. Math without word problems is kind of useless, ultimately
@Alek Sherstyuk - Maybe so, but the amount of times I have had to use any sq root mathematics in the last 20 years and had to come up with an answer within 1 minute is zero. So yes, in a perfect world maybe people should study for things they will never use so they can brag to their neighbors. But I'm not sure why that's necessary.
The numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... The square numbers 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 ... Which 2 of these add up to a third one? It's not a matter of memorization, just basic number sense and logic, and as someone else mentioned, reading comprehension. It's a shame that stuff like this is severely lacking in the general population. I honestly dont think theres an excuse for anyone coming out of high school to not be able to do this given a whole minute. Bo matter what specific facts you remember from school, school is supposed to teach you how to think clearly. That's not an ideal, that should be a bare minimum. It's like, pretty clearly pathetic to not be able to answer this question, right? Like, that that much money on the line? You wouldnt agree?
@Alek Sherstyuk - I was able to do the math after they explained it. It wasn't hard. But again, I haven't had any use for this stuff in the last 20 years, so I am not too sure what the value is to getting this problem right. So, I guess it's a matter of perspective as to what each person sees as practical knowledge.
Yeah well, the value of getting this right in this case is 15000 dollars, apparently, lol. Doesnt matter how many years you've stayed away from math. You gotta know 2 times 2. You gotta know 3 times 3, and 4 times 4, etc. Forgetting basic arithmetic is like forgetting basic grammar. How do you manage your money? Again, this is absolutely not a memorization problem. This is a "think for a couple of seconds, use basic arithmetic, and come up with the answer" problem. Honestly, probably more of an IQ test than a test of what your level of education is. But like, school should make us smarter. Help us be better problem solvers. Not teach us useless facts to memorize, I agree. In fact, this may be the only question on these kinds of game shows that requires absolutely no memorization. No knowledge of any useless trivia. You can figure it out on the spot with some carefulness and cleverness (which if you're applying to be a contestant on a game show, should be a given, or else you rightfully embarrass yourself).
Also, even if you treat this problem as pure trivia and try to go for memorization, that's what the show is about right? As a piece of trivia, the 3 4 5 right triangle is like, the single most memorable thing from high school geometry. I'm sorry. If someone thinks they deserve their shot being on a game show, then this question is fair game, and messing it up is just sad
@Alek Sherstyuk - Agree. The question is definitely fair game. I think it was very reasonable. But that said, there is a reason why so many people missed it. - Time. They pick the first answer that came to mind - Many people don't practice math, so they lose it. - Some I'm guessing thought the question was asking something different. Trying to decipher the equation isn't as easy as it should be when you're not in that mindset. It's part reading comprehension as well.
You can experiment with this and ask this question to 10 of your family and friends who have not used their math for at least 10 years. I think the results will be similar. Yet some of those people are probably very smart for the most part.
My mom couldn't get it. Which doesnt surprise me, since she doesnt think very mathematically/analytically. My dad teaches high school, so its trivial for him. But it's probably the biggest failure of math education in America that someone coming out of at least high school isn't actually taught how to think about or solve problems. Math is taught like it's a memorization thing, and yeah, I agree it's useless if you think about it like that. Theres plenty of reasons someone would get this wrong, but it's still sad and pathetic to see that. It just means school doesnt do its job. I mean, honestly, it's a form of illiteracy. Same as not being able to interpret legal documents, even in a basic way, or not being able to follow even moderately complex, technical instructions. These are skills adults should have. The fact that one of the most basic math questions you can ask is worth 15000 on a game show means that we basically accept, as a society, that most people, even smart people, are mathematically illiterate. My only point is that this is sad, and someone is to blame (bad teachers, bad administrators, bad policies that are hard to change, etc)
@Alek Sherstyuk - Welcome to America! Only in America you can become a football player and make 100X more than a scientist or engineer! My friend is pretty smart, but no PHD. Yet he made over $600K per year with a Bachelor's degree because he was a regional sales manager. He basically managed a sales force and also sold software. He far exceeded quota, so they gave him tons of bonuses. He did this for 4 years and retired. Only in America! Yes, America needs to become more math literate. But there's not much incetive to do so unless you have a STEM career. And most of those STEM careers do not require much math literacy.
2 cubed plus 2 cubed equals 4 squared which would make the audience correct... But unfortunately the audience weren't smart enough to get the squared question right.
Thanks man, I didnt knew that cube numbers cannot be expressed as the sum of two smaller cube numbers, u literally introduced me to a new concept in mathematics
Sanjeev Meena you have be to creative. As in many schools and academies maths is just taught to get full marks but very few teach how math is done. And those teachers are the best, thankfully, I got one. And it's not just because of ignoring math, it's because of ignoring teacher.
When i half read the question in thumbnail i knew the answer, i opened to c the video and found that audience is also nuts... The truth is this question is very easy
THE ANIMATOR stop being so racist not all Asians are good at math I don’t know why this kind of stereotypical thought is still going around I am an Asian and I feel kinda offended
อาทิตย์ Everyone has a line for taking jokes and if the jokes crossed that line then some people would be offended so I think it’s best for everyone to stop making this kind of jokes
Fire Boogaloo, I know,but for some people it is offensive, and I know not everybody has respect for the others. I hope most people can respect the others.What do you mean I can’t survive in the real world? What makes you think you can but I can’t? I think grammar is needed though,if you can’t spell aren’t right,then I think you can’t survive either.
@cookie Thats not a spelling error, its a grammatical issue and its not even a real one since most people are too lazy to include apostrophes when typing. Your grammar and sentence structure are atrocious, showing that English is not your first language. I wouldn't result to grammar as an insult when you clearly haven't mastered English yet. You just loom like an idiot.
As to the rest of your comment, grow up. You are the worlds biggest baby if you got offended by that.
Fire Boogaloo excuse me,I know I haven’t mastered English yet and yes I have to say that you are right about that,but it is true that people have different limits for taking jokes and what’s even the matter when you get offended by a joke? It doesn’t matter if I’m 9 or 90,the limit will most likely not change.I hope you can think about the situation I’m in right now because I’m Asian and I dislike the joke. For example,saying “Black people head to Mars because they are behind bars.”,would offend most people as this involves racism.To be honest,the person who say jokes like this intentionally are the idiots. If you think saying stereotypical jokes won’t offend anyone then you are wrong,I have to say that you might be the idiot here because out of 7 billion people,it is impossible for me to be the only person offended. So please,think again,I’m starting to feel annoyed
@cookie Firstly, your comment about blacks is completely unrelated as you are comparing a potential compliment (all asians are smart) to an insult (blacks belong in jail). Secondly, if you are offended by someone stereotyping your race as SMART, then you're an idiot. I don't know what else to tell you. If you're offended, you must not be within the stereotype and are therefore an idiot.
There are more important things to worry about than being called smart in a comment section. Like how about the starving children in Africa? The large abortion numbers? Donald Trump being the best candidate in a presential election? All of these are far more important and worrisome than being called smart. Don't be a baby and get over yourself.
The more stupidity starts when the audience starts to clap when the anchor says it's a wrong answer.....It's d same audience who made him lose d money....😂😂😂....Where does these aliens come from😫
The question is confusing. I got the answer, but took me like 3-5min… doubt I can solve it if under the pressure like him because I need more focus to do this math.
It's a purposefully worded question. I did not see an answer until I thought about it a second time. It's a clever way to drill home word problems. Not sure about the people who committed to 16 though.
@Unknown Unknown Because of the way the question is phrased, you don't have to rule out the higher numbers. The rules of the game are that only one answer is correct, so you're not being asked to identify all solutions, just the first viable solution. As soon as you find an answer that works, you can stop, because logically the remaining answers must be wrong. So you test 16 and eliminate it, test 25 and discover that it satisfies the criteria, and then 25 is your answer because you already know that there can't be more than one option that works.
@Peter Brunton Yep, right on. But my original assessment of the question I wasn't thinking low to high. I simply ruled out 16 and evaluated all the numbers. Then a couple seconds later I realized go low to high.
I picked 16 because I'm not a native english speaker and thought the question meant square roots instead of square numbers... 😓 (√16 =) 4 + (√144 =) 12 = 16
The King I know. It's just that I never learned maths in English and most of the time when I heard the word "square" it was when I heard "square root", so I guess I just associated the words with each other. 😓
Honestly I also picked 16 at first. The question at first made me naturally think about the square root of the number twice. Like square root of 16 is 4 and square root of that is 2. Thhen the second part asked for the sum of that. If this question was laid out like an equation it would be way too easy, but I can see how under a time limit we just went with the first natural assumption we had in mind and went with it. Hard to explain the thought process but I can totally see why people thought of it like that.
John Mista true. I thought they had to be the same at first before I realized it didn’t matter lmao. I got it right but it’s kinda a dumb question that’s not very specific
GD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 In Britain here there are so many students who are so good at maths, but then you get the people who are so below the standard. I kid you not someone thought 1--1 equalled 0 (and these are 13 year olds I'm talking about) while a kid in our class can easily do his A levels( not sure what the name of your exam taken at 17/18 years is called)
Sourav Thats funny how a country who is weak in math and science is also the only nation to ever put a man on the moon, as well as having the largest GDP in the world. I’m not saying we’re perfect, but don’t generalize a country of over 400 million people and not expect me to call you out on your bullshit.
Sourav yeah, that the other 65% arent indians, despite the fact that the US is a melting pot of people from other national backgrounds, making those 35% of indians part of the group you just called stupid. Got any more shit you wanna spew by belittling an entire population just to make your little wounded ego sitting atop your ivory tower feel superior?
Sourav, Harvey's number has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with random knowledge. Intelligence is about figuring things out and being able to easily grasp new concepts, not just memorize dates and formulas. Truly intelligent people will not memorize the random information but actually figure out why that information is useful and makes sense. You seem to already know Harvy's number so tell me, what does it mean and how can you use it? I am not only asking for formulas but am also asking for why the formula's make sense.
Sourav kid, who the hell goes "hahahaha"? When I have nothing to talk about? I'm actually stating REAL facts, not talking out of my ass like some child who can't even fact check what he's spouting, like how 35% of indians dont really work in NASA, look at hyperfoxie's link, that's why its there 😂. You're just looking more and more like a genuine idiot, because you just automatically assume im American, but in actuality i'm not 😂, typical pompous prick 😂. Sure I can tell you about trigonometry, why, do you need help with your high school non advanced math homework? 😂 How about your basic, elementary level english? You look like you could use some help with sentence structuring. 😂
Sourav 😂 Learn how to structure a proper sentence first, and learn basic punctuation. 😁 An american first grader can form a better sentence than you, 😂 is english too hard for you? Is it so difficult for your small mind to grasp proper punctuation? English isn't even my first language and yet I speak it better than you. 😂 Try again, and this time, use proper english. Though I know that that is too difficult for you. 😏
Sourav English is not mine either as stated previously 😂 And its not so hard, I speak Spanish, but I doubt you could make proper sentences in a secondary language like me either since you admit that you're english is weak 😂 It takes a particular brain capacity to be able to know two languages which you just proved you lack such a basic skill 😂, have you been using google translate to help you this whole time? 😂 If you can't even speak english properly, then I highly doubt you could even answer your own question 😂 you probably just looked up math problems on google while you looked up how to translate your probably just as poor hindi into english. 😂
Sourav Also, you're not one to talk about changing subjects when you ignored Alex eng's question you fucking hypocrite 😂 I can answer the question, I understand all the concepts you have been stating 😂 but for me to even bother to answer your silly question, tell me, why should I even care to entertain you when I don't even care about you or who you are? 😂 Who the hell even are you for me to try to prove myself to? You're nobody 😂 you're just one out of the billion street shitting Indians on the planet, who feels a lack of individuality that you feel the desperate need to try to impress people on the internet as if we were you're alchoholic father 😂 you must REALLY be new here if you genuinelly believe that how you have been dealing with me is how things work here 😂 why dont you just stay in your shit stained country and continue working as a taxi driver before you try to come onto people from other countries 😂
Sourav god damn your indian nationalism is fucking appalling. You dont have any success of your own, so you just claim any success your "group" of any Indians have made.
Sourav Oh my gosh, you actually consider those two as seperate languages! 😂 How fucking brain dead are you for real? 😂 You dont put python or java under languages in a resume you fucking donkey 😂 but if you want to get that technical then I can speak 7 languages. 😂
Sourav I am laughing my ass off fo real 😂 dude, your roasting game is fucking weak 😂 I think you're better at receiving shit that spewing it 😂 Like no one in america uses weak stuff like "there's more toilets in india than there are people in the U.S" like that were an insult 😂 well no shit you dolt, India has an overpopulation problem, and yet you STILL lack enough toilets for everybody, about 55 million in shortage, thats why there's so much shit in your streets 😂 I think I really must have struck a nerve to make you shake that pathetic roast 😂 the reality is there is such high rape rates in India, if nothing else you might actually not even know your own father 😂 but in any case you refuse to listen don't you? Thats why you are such a dumbass, I already told you i'm not American 😂
Sourav and to respond for nightmare's comment, so India is the best contributor for all the space junk? Thanks, now I'll know which country to blame. 😂 You're point about Bill gates holds literally no value to your argument, you want to know why? I'll tell you anyway because you're probably too incompetent to know why by yourself: India DIDN'T invent microsoft, and they didn't invent it first, an american did and WITHOUT the help of India 😂 you want to know what else america did first without the help for your second world country? Invent uses for electricity like the lightbulb, create the first infrastructure for telecommunication (that means invent the telephone and the means to implement it since you probably don't understand what you are reading), invent motorvehicles, and a slew of other things, but you are probably lacking in the history department as well as english so you are most likely too ignorant with your head so far up India's shit filled ass, that India literally wouldn't be anywhere without the U.S. How about next time your fat virgin ass reaches for a world history book before you waddle over here with your ignorance? 😂
Sourav, we all know you only hate America because it's so relevant to the rest of the world and no one gives a shit about your country. I hope your country gets invaded so your country will beg for Americas help.
Sourav I know you've probably had some bad experiences with Americans or something, but America is a diverse place. Calling Americans stupid is calling every other ethnicity, culture, and religion stupid, including yours.. Also, compared to 65%, 35% is not a large number. Also, you said Java and Python, which are popular programs here, I was just wondering if there are selectable language options, or does someone have to recode python but in Hindi?
I find this question kind of confusing myself, and I have studied fairly advanced math courses at university, so this has almost nothing to do with being "bad at math", or whatever.
Best way is to try and eliminate the wrong answers, starting with small numbers because they require the least calculation. (A) can be eliminated with 2 calculations, namely 3^2+2^2 = 13 and 3^2+3^2=18. Then just move onto the next smallest number.
The fundamentals of mathematics say so. Its formal definition is S_n = n^2 for some n in the set Z.
Z is the set of integers. From Wolfram a square number is "An integer that is the square (i.e., second power) of another integer". Key there being the word integer
MrSupdup Okay, thank you for the clarification. It has been a while since I have encountered someone so intelligent on the internet. A bit too complex an explanation though. Would've been a lot simpler to say "By the fundamentals of mathematics, all square numbers have to be integers." XD
GengarTheTroll It's funny that the person who doesn't understand what they're talking about is trying to correct the person who obviously knows. Your question of "who said squares have to be integers?" warranted MrSupdup's explanation of the formal definition, so it actually wasn't too complex; it was what you were asking for.
PizzaPyromancer What he said was extremely simple.. I'm taking AMC 10's now.. I know what he means..
It was a bit unnecessary to mention Wolfram, mention the set of integers, Z. Overall, I thought that it was a great explanation, but there wasn't a need to go into that amount of detail..
What you classify as a "formal definition" is of no relevance here. There are many "formal definitions" and Wolfram Alpha simply uses the one given by the commonsense assumption. In mathematics, a "number" is defined as any finite constant quantity not possessing surreal or hyper-real properties - that includes irrational numbers and complex numbers.
Please don't cite "fundamental mathematics" and ask others to educate themselves before arguing if you're the one lacking proper education about the topic.
Lol what? My education on the topic stems from 8 years of study and a doctorate. Citing the definition of a word isn't an appeal to authority. There would literally be no point to square numbers if it encompassed the set of real numbers. And it couldn't encompass the set of complex numbers...the square of a complex number cannot be a complex number, hence no complex numbers can be square numbers. Just think about it. i = root(-1). i^2 = (root(-1))^2 = -1. -1 is not a complex number.
But that aside, what would be the use of square numbers if they could be the squares of all reals? With the formal (and only) definition I posted above the square numbers would be: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 etc. Under your definition the square numbers would be every single number. 2 is root(2) squared. 3 is root(3) squared. Pi is root(pi) squared. -1 is i squared. -2 is 2i squared, etc.
What would be the point of square numbers if every number is a square number. Why not just call them numbers?
MrSupdup Well, first of all, I admire you not using a single cussword in your reply (unlike 3/3 other comments I've made around here).
So, yes it doesn't seem to make sense. And, also, be careful with "complex" - complex means a + bi (and a could = 0 - but it could also not). If you take 1 + i and square it, see what you get.
But regardless, they could be a bit more specific and replace "numbers" with "integers" - otherwise who the heck knows what might happen (just like we saw with the complex example).
And really... to be honest... who the F*@! cares?? These people have nothing better to do than to rant over a definition over a YouTube video, huh? Blah.
OverLordGoldDragon I know this is a week old but I think you should know what you get when you square 1 + i. (1 + i)(1 + i) =1 + 2i + i^2 =1 + 2i - 1 =2i The product is complex, therefore i + 1 is not a square number
ServentsofSauron Yeah I was the one who said the square of a complex is real, not OverLordGoldDragon. It was a rookie assertion I made without thinking it through.
Obviously there's plenty of complex numbers with complex roots.
GengarTheTroll common knowledge twat! Pick the best answer. It was clearly 25.
0 likes
Danny Borke2022-12-29 17:00:31 (edited 2022-12-31 08:33:48 )
I didn't think about the fact that is was a SQUARE number, so I said 16 because 2^4 = 16 and 2^3 + 2^3 = 16. My brain just went "square number = a number raised to the power of something", but 2^3 is a CUBIC number... :(
@Ai dono oh;; so 16 = 4*4, therefore numbers like 3*3, 2*2, 1*1, or 0*0 need to be used because it says "two smaller square numbers" I'd still approve that answer tho lol
It's complicated first reading it but you just go step by step each square number and then the answer is easy 1 square is 1 2 square is 4 3 square is 9 4 square is 16
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers." I'm not calling anyone stupid or anything but I don't get how that question is confusing.
bkmbkmbkm12 Do you not know what an integer is? It's a whole number with no fraction/decimal. For example, 32, 46, 12, and 15 cannot be square rooted into integers where 25 and 36 can.
TwisterLord The wording of the question is screwing me up. I know my square roots and arithmetic but I'm interpreting the question in two different ways.
Whilst yes the famous triangle 5^2 = 3^2 +4^2, even if you don't know that then you can work it out through guessing and checking. 2^2 = 4, 3^2 = 9. 9+4 = 13. 4^2 = 16. 16+4 =20 but 16+9 = 25 and that's an answer so go with it.
@BenjiTech "Can you elaborate? Because I don't see another interpretation."
Some people thought it was asking which square root (from the listed numbers) was also a number that could be gained by adding the sum of 2 numbers multiplied together, which gets the square root of the number picked. In that case, it'd be 16. I thought it was that too, because I thought there was a typo or something in there, lol. This question reminded me of a completely different problem, so I went off that memory. But I realize what it really meant, now.
TwisterLord it's the way that the question words it. Let me explain it simply. What square root number (of the multiple choices) is he the sun of two smaller square root numbers.
The answer is A. The square root of 16 is 4, and the square root of 4 is 2, thus making 2 a square root number. 2+2 is 4.
Never mind this shit is impossible to explain simply. If you see what the answer is, you'll get it
@Daisy hmmmmm...... But if you are not sure about the answer, you should use those lifelines. The audience poll was also not clearly on the side of Option A. There were many who supported Option B. So, he should have used the other lifelines.
50:50 would not help because it would still have been A & B
Phone a friend may have helped but the person could have been thinking in favor of the audience. So unless he felt he had something to loose then in retrospect using up your lifelines is dumb.
@Daisy I think you're correct. By the way, in your second reply, you said he would anyway lose his money..... But I think that there would be an option to QUIT the game. That would have atleast got him a 1,000$ more....... Dont you think so???
@Daisy The thing is- the host warned him and let him know that he has oyher lifelines. Even if he didn't use any more lifelines he should've taken the signal and understood that at least A isn't the right answer. Then may be try to figure out the answer out of the remaining 3...
@Name Less I'm not being rude when I say this but maybe you should reread the whole comment thread involving me. He didn't know where to start when trying to figure it out. Also even though A isn't the right answer it was still the most popular even adding the other two up still doesn't equal 50%. Using up all your lifelines on one question is guaranteed that you won't make it pass the next two questions.
Shut the hell up, miss reading a question doesn't mean I don't understand how math, in general, works. It means I miss read the question, which is a matter of English, not fundamental mathematics.
I can easily blame it on English as the question is a bit confusing upon first reading. Even though I know you're going to say you didn't, I'm sure you and everyone else had to read it a few times over. IF the question were, clear, that wouldn't be necessary.
An easier way to word it would be something like, "Which of the following numbers is the result of adding two smaller square numbers."
It's the same question but removes redundancy. Making the question more clear.
***** Hah... you're simply wrong. Please don't assume anything. Before you call someone out on something, find the proof. When stating 'non-reality', "were" is the proper usage. Although it is worth noting that according to Merriam Webster, both can be used interchangeably but that doesn't make "was" the correct use.
Also, cool, you read it twice. I'd believe you if you weren't such an idiot. E.G. You called me "dude" then proceeded to make a formal (and incorrect) correction on my word use.
Skyi Cowboi Thanks, but English is my native language and I speak it better than the vast majority of my peers.
My point, and maybe you agree, is that the question (although for all intent purposes is grammatically correct) is not worded the best it could be. The show is not about trick questions and there's extra words in the sentence that don't need to be in there. It's a redundant sentence.
By the way, your English is fine, better than most people in America at least. It's hard to tell online, so unless you have a really heavy accent, it might as well be your native language. Either way, you're not a blatant prick like Sherlock up there, so you have that going for you.
MrSteven334 You don't have to be a douche about it either. You got it, good for you, but you don't have to bring people down just because they couldn't understand it. I too was confused by the wording of the question, but I got it. Does it mean "I don't understand how math works?"
It's really funny cause i was like the audience with that one, but for some reason I was doing 2^3 + 2^3 = 16.... why the hell I cubed 2 is out of me.... too much numberfile video....
drfeelgud88 Wasn't being a douche. Merely stating that because he was reading it wrong is why he got the answer wrong. Not because it wasn't worded properly. It was worded fine.
So he can feel emasculated all he wants because he didn't get it, not my fault.
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?" The key word in that question is SUM. That means you have to find two square numbers that ADD to one of the answers. (3^2) + (4^2) = 25 or 9 + 16 = 25
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this question. Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers".
Ways people could be tricked by this question: 1) You did not know what square number meant. The square numbers are 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49 etc. They are the product of some integer by itself. E.g. 2*2=4, 3*3=9, 4*4=16 2) You didn't know what the word 'Sum' meant. Sum in maths means addition. So you add the two numbers together. 3) 'Two Smaller square numbers" - Even though 0^2 + 4^2 = 16 would seem correct, you have not understood that the question clearly states that both numbers must be smaller square number that the answer. Therefore 4^2 is invalid because it is equal to the answer and not smaller. By understanding this, we must exclude answer A and proceed with Answer B which is 3^2 + 4^2 = 25 (5^2). 4) If you said that (-4)^2 + 0^2 =16 could be accepted - this wouldn't work because the question states that the answer must be smaller than the other two SQUARE numbers. The question does not say that the square root of the square numbers must be smaller than the square root of the answer. Basically the square numbers must be smaller than 16,25,36,49. Not the square roots must be smaller than the other square roots. This means we cannot use -4 because it still makes 16 which is not smaller than Answer A.
So clearly the question couldn't have been worded any clearer. Just admit, you got confused and move on.
L.M As an engineering student who have recently a "lecture?" (not sure if the correct English word here) in clarity to speak to non technical person, I suppose you use correct instead of clear. The question increase the reading complexity by stating first a non essential property and using a more complex coordination between them. It also increase difficulty by separating the question and the propriety associated with it to the max. But the correctness of the question is indisputable and the difficulty not that much.
Also 0 and 1 are questionable square numbers because 0 is the multiplication "??? (something in English maybe)" where 0*x = 0 for all x who is a normal number and 1 is the multiplication neutral point (1*x = x, x number) so depending of the domain or application these property may be dominant and prevent them to be other thing.
OneWeirdDude The square of 0 and 1 is themselves, so they are not different from their square. It's the consequence of their property in multiplication. So the fact that they obey the rule is trivial and don't give more info. It may be or not be a problem depending of what you trying to do ultimately. Not a problem here, but caution is needed. For example you cannot tell the difference between 1^5 and 1^2.
Meiryousa it does not make a difference. no two square number added together(if they are the same) will equal 25. so, that is impossible. meaning, it has to be different number.
Hugbiel Yes i think i do understand what you are trying to say in your first part. But regardless the question was a correct question and there was not much room for ambiguity. Every question ever posed will offer ambiguity to someone out there, for instance, if i asked what colour is the sky? One would say blue, another would say light blue, another would say which planet does the question specify? etc. The answers give you a clue to what the question is asking and it is your job to use logic and reasoning to answer any question.
As for the second part, when you say a square number that means you must use the power of 2. So 0^2 and 1^2. This is where the basic level of maths comes in. You are not required to use any other powers apart from 2. Doing so will not achieve a square number in this case.
L.M I Agree for the most part. But what I want to display it's that's not trivial and have room for bad luck as opposed to direct stupidity. An example : the "also happens" look to me as a hook for shortcutting the question and the first answer have properties that respond to it : 16 = 4^2 = (2^2)^2 = (2+2)^2. I've done worse in exams. As we say in tabletop RPG anyone could roll a fumble on a stress die.
For the second part I knew I nitpick. The choice of 0 and 1 as square is not a so trivial choice and may cause problem later when doing other thing, like their status in primes numbers. They may also be some philosophical nitpick like the fact that I was already I before being the square of I ( and nothing is nothing :) ) but I suppose that's mostly for laugh nowadays.
Speaking of nitpicking I'm nor sure the not so innocent bystander will get that n^4 (also a n^30 but not n^(2*i); (i=√1) ) is still a square :P
Hello there, hopefully I can explain. A square number is a number that is produced by taking any integer times itself (ie 1 (1x1), 4 (2x2), 9 (3x3), 16 (4x4), etc. the question was which of the square numbers listed was the sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 is not equal to the sum of any two of 1, 4, or 9 so it is out. we can knock out 36 and 49 in a similar fashion. 25 happens to be the sum of 9 and 16, which are both square numbers, thus the answer to the question.
Source: I'm about to graduate with a B.S. in mathematics! (yay!)
But the point of the question is that all the answers are square numbers. It does not have to be worded better to make the question easier, the point of the wording is to confuse people like yourself so they get it wrong and don't win any money.
MrSteven334 Ill have to side with poor wording, I admit that you still can solve it, and pretty easily, but I thought it was (A) for the longest time, until Pythagoras got in my head, been so long since I have used that, yet yesterday I watched a video fermat's last therom.
Jason Elting For me, for whatever reason, I thought it was product not sum. So I thought, 4x4 is 16 In which case it wouldn't be B and it wouldn't be C and it wouldn't be D. So I immediately wondered why it wasn't A.
And then of course, everyone freaked out and assumed I was incompetent of math.
People are actually idiots if they don't understand how one could make the mistake. It's a very simple mistake to make, and if you didn't make it then bully for you, but if you're actually too ignorant to consider how it might be possible for someone else to, then you're a lot fucking dumber than they are.
I'm a fairly successful adult, and I've accomplished a lot of pretty great things in my life that make me more than secure enough to know that no one with a clue could tell me I'm not smart, and I made the same mistake of thinking it was 16 at first, too, before I thought about it and realized, "oh, shit, it's 'sum,' not 'product...'
16 is the PRODUCT of two smaller square numbers ((2^2)x(2^2)). It's a VERY easy mistake to make. My mind just went immediately to cube roots. It's a difference one word that you have to think back to eighth grade math class for, but I guess that's pretty recent for a lot of these stupid little fucking kids who wanna feel smart but aren't capable of accomplishing that in the real world, so they come here.
On the other hand, I will also say that it IS weird that you keep coming back here to respond to these criticisms...
Dan Nolan I can't avoid seeing the notification. And every time I see one, I'm intrigued to see what the next idiot said. Eventually I decided to say something. It takes maybe 15 seconds of my day so who cares?
If I honestly cared about what people were saying, I wouldn't have left the comment up. But this just gets more entertaining for me.
I already won. It's completely over. It's like you got knocked out in a fight, but you think if there were a few more rounds maybe you could turn things around.
It's done, loser. You lost.
You don't get to pretend you're not upset about being made to look like an idiot AND keep trying to defend yourself. You're pretending you said stuff wrong on purpose AND insisting it's not actually wrong AND that you're "trolling," but ALSO you clearly genuinely care what I think of you because I've so handily defeated you and shown you how smart I am and how stupid you are. There's a difference between trolling and not being able to let something go because your feelings are hurt.
So I'm not gonna waste my time talking in circles explaining over and over again how fucking dumb you are until you figure it out. Hire a fucking tutor.
And go ahead and keep responding. I know you can't take losing, so you wanna keep dragging this on to try and dilute the pain you feel from the merciless intellectual asskicking I just put on you. Or say nothing. I win either way. I win if you respond or if you don't, because I'm smarter than you.
Jonas0291 You can't possibly expect people to take your comments seriously when you use "trolling" as a crutch for your own stupidity. You weren't "trolling" anybody, you were just being a whiny fuck who wanted to prove to random people that you understood how to answer this question.
Jonas0291 No there's a difference. A troll would pointlessly offer a reply that is inconceivably stupid.
You offered a reply that wasn't stupid, it's just been stated multiple times. If you want to claim you weren't trying to act smart and weren't using the concept of "trolling" as a crutch, then I suppose you're one of the most unoriginal trolls I've seen.
The question is so simple how people say that the answer is A ? 8 + 8??? the square root of 8 is 2.82 in that logic then the correct answer is all of them why should it be A?
How is "Which of the following numbers is the result of adding two smaller square numbers." easier or even different to read than "Which of the following numbers is sum of two smaller square numbers."?
Guy who claims he has no problem with math should know that a sum is actually result of adding numbers.
A=16 4 squared is 16. Granted, 1 squared would be 1, but you add that to 4 and get 17. With 25, it's 4 squared, which is 16, and 3 squared, which is 9, to make the answer.
It's understandable that he wouldn't know this, it is a difficult process.
Burlap Sack Its funny that when I started working in Switzerland and my spoken French was 'basic' at best, there were more communication issues with our US colleagues speaking English than the French-speaking Swiss. There were sometimes huge differences of understanding of simple sentences. I'm no slouch at maths but I misunderstood the question completely. Would be interesting to see how many UK-English speakers interpreted the question.
Alicia Embrey i agree, i said in the pparentheses "if they are the same" meaning if there were two exact same square numbers. 9 and 16 do add to 25 but they are not same values.
there is nothing to misunderstand if you know what a square number is (speaking of natural numbers and squared natural numbers). everyone who knows, knows square numbers below 49: 36, 25, 16, 9, 4, (0) how difficult is it to combine some?
the only explanation is that people don't know what square numbers are. it doesn't surprise me though. the average person doesn't know shit about maths and (natural) sciences. not only in america.
I know I'm not a maths genius. Also I don't think it's necessary to be. I'm more vised in the educational and linguistic fields... yet basic maths is something anyone should know.
That would be an infitite number of answers because pythagorean theorem and triplets have no bounds or limits that have yet to be found, thus why its still a theorem. The question showed the 3-4-5 and if you multiply each number by two you get another triple 6-8-10 and you can keep adding constants to it and get an inifiate number with just that ratio not to mention any others.
***** I was trying to explain it in a way that wouldn't require mathematical proofs. I was basically trying to say that there is more then just a limited number of answers for "What two square numbers add together to form another square number" and using the fact that there would be an infinite number, albeit smaller than other infinites, of such combinations.
***** They effectively mean the same thing, although there is a slight difference in semantics between the two. Square numbers (more specifically perfect-squares) refer to the numbers (0), 1, 4, 9, 16, etc. in their natural form. The term "squareD" number, on the other hand, refers to the root of a squared number (e.g. 9 as a squared number would be 81, which is a "square" number). In the case of 81, 9 is the squared number, and 81 is the square (of 9). With all that said though, people will generally understand either term by the context of the sentence it is used in.
@Rhea Verma He/She meant that it took him/her so long to even understand the question. And also, please comment in a language others can understand. Because really tho, its you who didnt understand what he/she said.
@Dan Tudor I don't understand the question at all, even after more then a minute. But I'm pretty sure, you you're the "not very intelligent person" of us two :)
Christian Schroeder Isn't it the same? And i'm sorry cuz i live in Indonesia. And we call it akar which translate to root in English. So i don't familiar with English education term
Dios nevan I'am not american too, I'm from germany and I don't think so. The square of 3 is 9 The root of 9 is 3 (The root of the square number 9 is 3) That is a small difference I think or am I wrong?
Dios nevan By the way, sry for being a little rough in my first message. I thought you were an American who is thinking they make this math in the USA the other way round :D
Christian Schroeder Nah, it's common for people to think an english comment to be from western. Atleast you take time to explain to me. So thank you mate
Want to know why Asian countries are overtaking us? I’ll guarantee you, on the Japanese version of the show the contestant and the audience would have the answer.
Same, for some reason I thought the two square numbers to be summed had to be the same numbers. So I'm only thinking about 2+2, 4+4, 9+9, 16+16, or 25+25 and none of those are correct. So easy to misinterpret the question.
69696 subscribers with no videos challenge How‘s the question poorly worded? 25, a square number, 16 and 9, two square numbers that sum up to 25. That‘s very precisely what the question is asking for.
I figured out that 25 was correct fairly quicly. A while later, it hit me that 16, 36 and 49 are also correct. They failed. They should have asked for natural numbers.
It's worded in a way to make the question seem harder and throw off people. Identifying the answers as squared numbers has nothing to do with how to solve the problem (Yes the all the answers ARE squared numbers, but this isn't knowledge that is necessary for an answer). The question could have said, "the sum of two squared numbers equal which of the following answers?" Also, this question is more of a theory question that you were supposed taught in school and not something you're supposed to be trying to calculate in your head.
v b2018-11-21 12:39:27 (edited 2018-11-21 12:41:19 )
No shit! We did a crapload of questions based on Pythagoras theorem and such easy numbers in school. Few years later, I didn't even get the question for atleast the first 70 secs.
florin I doubt it. You would have to realize what square numbers there are when squaring up to 7 and then try adding 2 of each of them to get 1 of the 4 answers I doubt you could process all that in 2 seconds
Frankly this is why I hate quiz shows like these. They mislead and word the question on purpose just so you would have a hard time figuring out wtf is the question even suppose to be
That's OK . I think that's what happened to him. He was too pressured, he should of just sat there and used his head for a minute. I can't believe the majority of people are math illiterate though that's what surprised me here.
@Anonymous Person The question wasn't worded weirdly at all. Could you tell me how the question could be incorrectly misinterpreted? It said everything just fine. "Which square number is the sum of two smaller square numbers." It was actually a pretty well worded question.
For the people who says it's poorly worded. it's a quiz, you expect them to blatantly says PHYTAGORAS NUMBER, of course not, it's suppose to use your brain (which you should do sometimes :D)
Did the audience apologize afterwards? Curious look on his face at 2:16. Almost as if he can't believe he's wrong, or he can't believe the audience didn't know its ass from a hole in the ground.
Most of the comments below are saying this question was poorly worded.
How was this poorly worded? I thought it was a very fair question in a fairly worded manner. If you thought it was poorly worded, please give us a decently worded version.
+TisfatDude0703 The only improvement is mentioned they have to be the smaller number must be integers larger than zero, but yeah it's pretty clear that's what it meant.
+TisfatDude0703 When I first saw this question I thought it meant "which one of these numbers have a squared number to this number" so lets say 2^2=4 and 4^4=16 (but backwards) while the others didnt have this kind of connection. English is not my foregin language and I tend to miss these kind of details (like 50% of the audience did). But thats just me.
+Lethargica Stengah A square number (also known as a perfect square) is an integer that is the square of an integer. That is a fact. If you want to argue about that, then you are arguing with every mathematician ever.
And guess what? 48 is not a square number. They did specify a type of number, and that number is a square number.
+Lethargica Stengah Politeness, and acknowledging that you admitted you were wrong. I didn't insult you, I just acknowledged you. I even said I respected you. What's the problem?
+TisfatDude0703 Oh I see, many people probably don't know that the "sum of two numbers" means result of adding two numbers, just think of sum as singular of "sums". So 4*4 = 16 is a sum which multiplies two squares together to make 16, makes sense if you think of it that way. So they would need to rephrase it as "which of these square numbers can be got by adding together two square numbers" and then everyone would have got it right.
I think they understood it as "Can you think of a sum with two square numbers that makes a third square number", with "sum" as singular of "sums" which makes sense if you never knew or forgot that sum meant the result of adding.
I don't think this is trolling by the question setter, or, at such an early stage, deliberately trying to trip people up. They probably just never thought to try out the question on ordinary people to find out how they understood it. Because, if you have done high school maths recently, or have scientific or mathematical background, this is just how you understand the word "sum of two numbers".
It is a general thing in maths, even at research level - the first thing to do when reading a paper is to make sure you understand all the terminology being used in the paper, and also that you use the terminology the same way the author does, or else, understand the difference if they use it differently from the way you normally use it. Sometimes an author will use standard terminology but in a rather non standard way to mean something different (a bit like "operator overloading" in C++) - and that can throw you completely. Even the best mathematicians can be caught out by this reading a paper on a topic they are unfamiliar with.Indeed addition and multiplication are good examples. These symbols are used in many different ways in maths, and it is common also to have different types of addition and multiplication even in the same subject area (e.g. the "dot" and "cross" product multiplication of vectors for a simple example) so when you read a paper you need to be sure you understand addition and multiplication in the same way as the author or you will seriously misunderstand what it is about from the get go.
+Lethargica Stengah You do know what "GG no re" means, right? It means Good Game no rematch. I was implying that you just got destroyed by +phantasm1004. I was very aware that I was being made fun of, as was everyone else. Why are you trying to bait me?
Lethargica Stengah I am not asking simply for your context, I am asking why you are being so ignorant and impudent. Your first statement written in your comment was incorrect and was corrected by someone who was more educated and intelligent than you about this specific topic. You have admitted your fault, and that user appreciated your action and respected you for it. However, you misinterpretated his comment as patronizing. I am baffled as to how you thought that because you cannot tell such tone in his comment that could make you jump into the automatic conclusion of him being patronizing. He even then apologized politely for the misunderstanding. However, you then posted a comment in a tone that was hypocritical and rude. Then another intelligent user came by and exemplified the situation in relation to your comment; in other words, he did destroy you. Then the initial intelligent user made a comment that was of completely common reference on the internet, but you failed to get it and ridiculed yourself even more. I repeat, what the hell are you on about?
TisfatDude0703 Well, I confront him for the fun of it. It is fun to see others defend when you show aggression. The other guy's exemplification was completely trivial; I have nothing to hide here. So now you join, pointlessly summarizing the conversation, telling me that Steven Miles is "more educated and intelligent" than me, that I misinterpreted his comment as patronizing. No, I did not misinterpret it as patronizing in the sense that he meant it to be so, but I still made him aware of how it looked so that he doesn't show respect to someone in this way again. Then for the rest, I get bored and make fun of him, so what? There is not enough information here to see who is "more educated and intelligent". He clarified the elements of the square number set, so what? This doesn't show who is smarter, so you must mean this argument I'm having for fun? Well, why couldn't a smart person do this? What is wrong with experimenting aggression with other people over the internet? It hurts nobody, everyone has the choice to stop taking part in it. You obviously showed interest in it, and that's why you joined. Besides, what if I actually MEANT that I respected him for apologizing? In a way I actually did. He seemed very nice, I was being gentle my satire. Then he decides to say "GG no rematch", how childish.
Lethargica Stengah Your entire comment is full of contradictory and illogical statements which I personally expected. And just how was I being "aggressive"? Was I typing in caps? Did I put any exclamation marks? Is or are there any specific part/parts in my comment where I sounded aggressive? Bold letters just mean emphasis. Actually, my summary was completely correct and was not pointless due to a reason I needed to make you understand you were being an absolute jerk for no apparent reason. However, your arrogance and your self-indulgence prevents you from admitting it. How would you exactly know he was being patronizing? Like I said in my previous comment, you cannot tell such tone in his comment that could make you jump into the automatic conclusion of him being patronizing. And your next statement comes in with no sense: "Besides, what if I actually MEANT that I respected him for apologizing? In a way I actually did." Two things. What if Steven Miles actually meant that he respected you for apologizing? In a way he actually did. Secondly, that cannot be true because you ADMITTED YOURSELF that it was satire, and questioned him if he did not realize that you were making fun of him. And seriously, what the hell is "gentle satire"? Your comment was a complete sarcasm intended to be offensive. It was quite obvious because you replicated his previous comment; and phantasm1004 and I noticed it. If you read my previous comment thoroughly, I said that he was more educated and intelligent than you about this SPECIFIC TOPIC; i.e. "Square number", NOT more educated and intelligent in general. (Although I think he is.) There is enough information because you were wrong, and he corrected you providing facts. "I get bored and make fun of him, so what?" Are you kidding me? You call that a justified course of action? Evaluate your thinking, please.
TisfatDude0703 ... I was speaking of my aggression. No, you never needed to make me understand what I was doing, I perfectly understood it. You wasted your time commenting, so of course you want to believe that there was a point behind it. I've told you exactly why I was being an 'absolute jerk', there is no 'no reason' to it. I don't understand why you'd bother finding these worthless excuses to why I'm doing what I'm doing. I told you, I have nothing to hide. I've told you exactly what I'm doing, accept it. You don't know if he was being patronizing, that's the point. I tell him that it sounds patronizing so that he considers it next time he speaks to someone. I never concluded he was patronizing, you made up an excuse for this too, see? You can respect someone and still make fun of them, I do this with people all the time. Don't lie to yourself that this doesn't make sense; it's perfectly fine. I never apologized to Steven Miles, I admitted what I misunderstood. If you are seriously asking me "what if" he respected me, then the result would be exactly the same as it is now. "That cannot be true because you ADMITTED YOURSELF" what if I am lying? You cannot prove to me that I am not, nor can you prove that I am. But let's suppose I wasn't lying, for the the fun of it: Well, I have bad news for you, none of you could have possibly known, because you determine the future of this. By 'gentle satire', I mean 'banter', but I'd rather say something else so I use this. Ahah, "intended to be offensive". Most of your points so far have been completely subjective, I never gave a fuck about offending him. You noticed the sarcasm? Good, that was the whole point. Sadly, that sarcasm was intended for Steven. Too bad he didn't understand it until the other guy somewhat pointed it out (I was not being 'extremely patronizing'). Ah, more educated and intelligent about this specific topic? Fair enough. However, I'd still argue against this, I believe "more knowledgeable" is what you were meant to say. It doesn't make much sense saying it otherwise. I would never think that I am 'more intelligent' than somebody about cardinality of sets, for instance. "There is enough information because you were wrong, and he corrected you providing facts." This doesn't imply that he is smarter, it implies he is more knowledgeable about the particular topic. Think of this implication in a more general perspective and you'll see that it is dumb to think this. Huh? Of course that is a justified course of action. There is nothing wrong with this. I don't need any meaning to do it. You should ask yourself what you've asked me, "what the hell you are on about?". You have made so many excuses over nothing for the sake of trying to show me wrong, the question will do you good.
+Lethargica Stengah Just so you know, my goal was never to be patronizing. I even apologized for the fact that it "sounds patronising", even though I didn't think it did. I am now saying it again: I am sorry for coming across as patronizing. I have already said this, and am honestly starting to wonder if you are just a troll with a large vocabulary. If that is the case, then please inform me so that I can stop responding to your comments with civility. This is my second sincere apology. I do not believe that I am wrong, but common courtesy calls for me to apologize, and I will do so. I will not apologize again.
THE ABOVE COMMENT IS IN NO WAY PATRONIZING, SARCASTIC, OR MEANT AS A VERBAL ASSAULT ON ANY ONE PERSON. DO NOT MISINTERPRET MY COMMENT AS SUCH.
***** 5, 6, 7 are not square numbers. Square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16. 25. 36. 49. 64, etc. They are an integer that are the square of an integer. 25 is the only answer because the two smaller square numbers are 9 and 16. 9 + 16 = 25. The answer cannot be 16 because the square numbers smaller than 16 are 1, 4, 9. You cannot make 16 using those numbers. 36 cannot be the answer because the square numbers smaller than 36 are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, and you cannot make 36 using those numbers. So forth.
Steven Miles You speak to me as if this "GG no re", "you just got destroyed!" thing never happened. Notice how you straight away assumed that I was being completely sarcastic once phantasm1004 replied? When I made that reply, I thought to myself, "wouldn't it be fun to show him respect for apologizing whilst making joking with him?". You chose to interpret it the wrong way, at least I questioned what you said to me so I could understand you. You never bothered. There's no point accepting your apology without acknowledging this, sorry.
+Lethargica Stengah I didn't assume you were being sarcastic, I know you were. Copying someone else's comment verbatim is obviously an attempt at being insulting. And you NEVER questioned me or made an attempt to understand what I was saying. You asked WHY, but never WHAT. You came in flinging profanity at me from the start. Don't even try to say that you tried to understand what was being said; you never even tried. Once you started cursing and accusing me of being patronizing I lost some of the respect I had for you, but then when I apologized and you replied with sarcasm I lost ALL respect for you. When I said GG no re, there was no reason for me to be polite. You speak as if you never used profanity at me or tried to mock me before I said GG no re. I don't see how being a jerk to people is "fun satire".
Steven Miles Don't lie to yourself, you never knew I was being sarcastic. It took someone to point it out for you to see. "You asked WHY, but never WHAT." Why lie? This is exact quote from me "What makes you feel the need to say this?" Well, I did try to understand what you said. Your comment did sound patronizing to me, I felt insulted, so I question it to see your explanation. Look, it is your problem for finding "fuck" offensive, your problem for finding sarcasm offensive. I never cared about your respect, and even if I did, I'd still make fun of you. This is a fun way I interact with people. Some find it fun, some don't, it is your choice to take it seriously or not. Now, if for some reason you still feel the need to argue with me and +1 each other to show your wonderful support, go ahead.
+Lethargica Stengah "What makes you feel the need to say this?" literally is asking me why. Do you not understand English? That's asking me why I said it, not what it means. You never asked me what it meant, just why I said it. You asked me what makes me say what I said not what exactly my comment meant.
And OF COURSE I know you were sarcastic. You copied my comment WORD FOR WORD. That's why I said "GG no re."
In the real world, no one likes to be made fun of. It is insulting and rude. You need a reality check, and another English class. I just made fun of you with that statement, and I guarantee that you did not enjoy that.
Steven Miles Look at yourself creating pointless excuses to show that I am in the wrong, you're worse than a woman. You actually tried to make it seem as if I never asked "what"? Do you not realise that "what" is associated with "why"? And you tell ME to take English lessons? Asking why you said it lead to what you explaining what you meant. After this I understood exactly what you meant. The excuses you try to deduce off of your own bullshit is fun to watch. You know I was being sarcastic? Good, that was the point of it. Take it like a man and move on. Besides, it did take a person to point it out in order for you to see it. I don't know what kind of feminine dominated world you live in, I know plenty of people who I can joke and insult with a friendly manner. Imitating your comment is nothing to whinge about. It is good you try to make fun of me also. Do you wish to continue circle jerking +1's with TisfatDude0703 and argue like a woman over your femininity? I can play along a little longer. :>
+Lethargica Stengah Wow, you are even dumber than I thought you were. When I pointed out and fully explained that "What makes you feel the need to say this?" means that you are asking why, (and Why and What are indeed associated, but are not interchangeable. What a moronic excuse) you panicked, realizing that I had the facts on my side, and devolved into calling me "worse than a woman."
What an insulting thing to say! Worse than a woman? OH NO! I'M SO INSULTED! Because we all know that women are horrible detestable things, right? (This is sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.)
And no, it didn't take anyone pointing out your sarcasm for me to know that you were being sarcastic. I already explained this, but seeing as you have a very feeble grasp of the English language I can understand the difficulty you may be having.
So now we all learn that not only are you poorly educated in math AND English, but you are a woman hater as well! It's probably because they hired a woman over you because she actually understands middle school math and passed her high school English class.
And yes, insulting is okay among friends. I constantly insult my colleagues, and they do likewise. But they are my friends, and we know each other. If you go to a public place and insult someone you don't know, you'll get beat down. I am not one of your friends. I do not know you, and you do not know me. Insulting random strangers is never an acceptable thing to do.
+Lethargica Stengah Lol this is just hilarious. Can you get any more stupid? No one assumed that you were being sarcastic. It was beyond obvious that you were being sarcastic. You literally replicated his comment. It's common sense. Also, if you're still stubborn to think that we assumed, then phantasm1004 surely didn't. He knew straight away, because it was obvious. So even if you think that we were assuming, there was another individual who knew.
What does it mean by "show him respect whilst joking with him?" That's not showing respect at all. Look at your comment again. You were obviously making fun of him, in other words, offending him. Don't even deny it, because you were the one who said you were making fun of him. Therefore, his, or phantasm's, or my interpretation of your comment was correct. You didn't question him what he said to you. "What the fuck? What makes you feel the need to say this?" You straight away concluded that he was being patronizing, and that is why you said "What makes you feel the need to say this?"
From most of my previous statements, there was no need to question you on what your comment sounded like. It's common sense. We, meaning three individuals, can clearly notice it was sarcastic. "Don't lie to yourself?" You already lied to yourself. Before you said "Besides, what if I actually MEANT that I respected him for apologizing? In a way I actually did." And now you admit that you were being sarcastic. "Why lie?" Ask that question to yourself now.
Your next statement was just too mind-numbingly idiotic. Are you fucking kidding me? It's his fucking problem for finding the word "fuck" offensive? And it's his fucking problem for finding sarcasm offensive? Then tell me this, you fucking twat. Why in the fuck did you say you felt insulted of his apparent sarcasm? You're so ridiculously confident infront of your keyboard. Now try to go up to a stranger in real life and talk to him in a serious tone using the word "fuck", and see if he's completely normal with it. And then, tell him that it's his fucking problem that he finds it offensive. Does the way I'm fucking speaking right now sound right to you? I'm obviously not being fucking offensive, it's your fucking fault if you think I am. And that was a mixture of an example of your delusional thoughts and sarcasm.
"I never cared about your respect, and even if I did, I'd still make fun of you. This is a fun way I interact with people." Is this how you make friends? Melancholic. Good luck having a social life.
In your next comment, it shows that you are a misogynist. Why are you downgrading women all of a sudden? It's not even a minor sexist joke, you're literally diminishing all of the female individuals and saying that Steven Miles is worse than them.
After he figured out your sarcasm (which he did in the first sight of your comment), you told him that he should take it like a man and move on. Then tell me this, why haven't you done that? Instead you question him like a posh infant using profanity of why he just said that.
How are women exactly related to this? Women and men can both take jokes, but Steven was a complete stranger to you, and you now come up with a bullshit excuse that your comment consisted of "friendly manner". Where in any of your comment did you show friendly manner?
Steven Miles I was essentially asking "what" AND "why". I asked "what made you feel the need to say this?" in order to find out WHAT made you feel the need to say it. It ALSO asks "why did you say this?". "Why" is to ask "what is the reason for this?", see? But it doesn't matter, you want to believe otherwise just so "you never tried to understand!" feels valid to you. YOU are the one panicking over this, so of course you say "You don't understand English!!! You need English classes!!!" Yes, you argue worse than a woman; you try so hard to dismiss what I say by making completely arbitrary reasons to attack me with. For instance, you now believe I hate women because I implied their arguments are worthless. This is a typical reaction that is always fun to watch. :> You tell me that I'm poorly educated in math due to the misunderstanding of a set. You think you understand mathematics better than me over this? How closed minded of you. Nobody gives a fuck about middle school math once you reach university level. We aren't in a public place face to face, we can insult one another as much as we please. Experimenting socially on here is always fun to do during spare time. People love to make a huge fuss.
TisfatDude0703 It is interesting how you misinterpret my words (perhaps intentionally) just so you can waste your time writing paragraphs to attack me with. I've already explained to you that my sarcasm was intended as "banter". Why make such a big deal out of it? My motivation wasn't to purely insult him. You choose to find it completely offensive, not me. " You straight away concluded that he was being patronizing" This is a wonderful example of misinterpreting words. I never "straight away concluded" he was being patronizing. I reacted to how it sounds to me, so I ask him why he says this. Nothing more, nothing less. You have a problem considering the timing of this conversation. Steven Miles initial reaction to my sarcasm was just a +1 with "no problem". He didn't see it until the other guy pointed it out. This is what I am referring to, not after. Telling me "but you admitted it!" makes no difference in this case. Yes, it is his problem for finding "fuck" offensive. It was confusing, you couldn't tell if he was legitimately being nice or patronizing. A "wtf?" reaction is perfectly fine here. If I had this conversation with him face to face, I'd still react with "wtf?", it's no big deal.
"Is this how you make friends?" No, I'm not trying to make friends here.
Yes, I am a sexist, so what? I pay attention to stats, I observe the difference between men and women, I am not blind for the sake of holding a politically correct mindset. However, I do know that I exaggerate by saying "you argue worse than a woman", but it's nice to relate his argument style with them. You ask me to take his patronizing sounding comment "like a man"? Well, this is exactly what I did, I confronted him and clarified what he meant. Where did I show a friendly manner? In my sarcastic comment.
TisfatDude0703 How the fuck didn't I know? Well, it's simple; I had forgotten. It's no problem. The basic mathematical operators in mathematics were not the issue here, if you didn't see. The problem was that I didn't see 'square numbers' as having to be squared integers since I treated both terms separately, not as name of a set.
+Lethargica Stengah Arguing with you isn't worth the effort. I know I'm right. No matter what I say, you will argue with it. You will probably try to argue with this statement(but now that I've said that, you might not argue just to spite me). I know that you are just trying to make me mad and illicit angry responses from me. Any logical person who reads this chain can see that. No one here takes you seriously anymore. You are just a common breed of troll that knows how to read the dictionary. There is no point in arguing with you, so, I'm done. The only thing that makes a troll angry is not responding to them. I've fed the troll enough. You probably won't have to buy food for weeks from all the feeding I've given you, so I'm just going to back out. Enjoy the meal. +TisfatDude0703 Thanks for actually understanding the basic concept that insulting people you don't know is socially unacceptable-a concept that many people think that because they are on the internet, it does not apply anymore. But whether it's face to face or through the internet, respect should be present. It's just common sense.
Steven Miles Of course arguing with me wasn't worth the effort, that's the fun of it. Don't misunderstand my intentions though, it was not to make anybody mad.
+dispatch1347 Square numbers are non-negative by definition. Otherwise, the negative numbers would be a product of two imaginary numbers, containing i.
+Lethargica Stengah Wow, I haven't seen demency on a level as serious as yours for quite a long while now. Thank you, indeed you made us all have a good laugh, which you insist was your objective, even if we are laughing at you, so gratz.
+Lethargica Stengah that makes sense but it goes against the question because you are meant to assume that you will only be using only whole numbers and no decimals seeing as that exceeds the shows thought capacity.
+TisfatDude0703 its wording is fine. Probably should have mentioned square whole number since any number square whether be irrational can add up to 16, 36, 49. Other than that, the wording is fine the way it is.
+TisfatDude0703 It was poorly worded. I would have worded it as: Which of these square numbers also happens to be compromised of two consecutively smaller squared numbers? ^ at least that makes more sense. I know math, I could figure this out but it took me a while to figure it out.
Oh wow. After watching I thought it was A too. See now this really messed me up. Screw this lol.
Xilence I guess that does make sense. Putting the word "consecutively" there gives you a hint, which makes the question easier. But I still don't think that the original question was "poorly worded". The only possible square number that was the sum of two smaller square numbers was 25. How did you think it was A?
+TisfatDude0703 This question is only "poorly worded" if you don't know the definitions of the words being used like "sum" & "square number." That being said, it's not poorly worded at all. In fact, it couldn't be more concise than it already is. It is no one's fault other than your own if you missed the answer because you don't know the definitions of the words used.
Adding clarifiers and details and specifics to the question would simply be distracting & unnecessary.
PS I loved this comment section. I had to stop reading halfway through & go make a bowl of popcorn. Thanks for that!
+TisfatDude0703 Didn't pay attention to the wording and got it wrong, I would have had the correct answer if I listened to the SUM part of the question.
+TisfatDude0703 Made perfect sense in hindsight, the math was easy, the precise definitions of the terms was not something I was up to date on. I considered 36 possible, as the sum of 16 + 16 + 4 = 36 and 16 and 4 are two square numbers, obviously not the case but it was confusing.
+graphicjazz Yes, but the question wanted the square number to be the sum of two "smaller" square numbers. So for a^2=b^2+c^2, you can't let b=0, because then c^2=a^2 and is not smaller than a.
TisfatDude0703 Also, I'm Dutch. Later, after I finally understood the question, I translated it. Then the sentence itself was much more clear to me. Ofcourse, after I already understood what was meant, but still, even now I think it's hard to understand (the English question).
So not being English is also a huge reason I didn't get the question.
+TisfatDude0703 I did not understand what it was asking at first, but if I did I would've got it. I thought they were asking which one of those numbers that you can add to another squared number to get another squared numberExample: 36 + 49 = 85.Thought they meant something like this.
+Turtle Philosopher I see what you're saying. However, I'm still not convinced that this is a badly worded question. I'm still not seeing how it could be 2*2. The only possible answer was 25 up there. That contestant didn't read the question carefully enough.
Saleh Alkandary In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer; in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it can be written as 3 × 3.
+TisfatDude0703 This is the most well spoken you tube comment section I have ever seen lmao, I planned on picking a side which was yours but it took me 20 min to read everyone's paragraphs(i didn't read all of them) PS: youtube comments cant be taken as patronizing because it's all based on how the receiver of said comment views the person saying it. Example - you can't show sarcasm in a comment unless you say it is sarcasm
(smaller number), got it . With my over an hour time spent on it overall, I am finally convinced that the question is correct, until further update. Got love this thread, fine people.
Here is the real reason its poorly worded. It doesn’t exclude 0. By definition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number ) a square number is an integer multiplied by itself. Since 0 is an Integer and 0*0 = 0^2 = 0 is true it follows that 0 is a square number.
16 = 4^2 + 0^2 25 = 5^2 + 0^2 36 = 6^2 + 0^2 49 = 7^2 + 0^2 Holds true to all four answers. Therefore all answers should be correct This game show is a typical example of non-vigorous mathematics gone wrong.
The correct way of wording it would be the following: Which of these square numbers N ={15,25,36,49} also happens to be sum of two smaller square numbers s1,s2 ∈ S = {s∈ Z | s*s} with s1,s2 > 0
Valid point, but I doubt the majority would think of the possibility of 0 being a square number, even though it is. So your wording is correct, but this game show would never throw out such a mathematically worded question.
The reason the question does not need to explicitly exclude 0 is that it implicitly did (by demanding that the two square numbers are smaller than the result). It is not the responsibility of the question writer to spoon feed you the answer.
Imagine if it said: Which of these perfect squares is the sum of 2 smaller perfect squares. Boom 10 x more clarity, would've solved it in under 2 seconds easily
I thought it wanted me to add to 5 with 2 & 3, or add to 4 with 2 &2 at first. But then I realized I can do that with all of them and figured it it's asking me to do 16+9
I’ve been reading like the 10 first comments and then you guys start arguing about patronizing and some other shit. This is what idiots look like. They always argue over shit
"Which of the following is the sum of two square numbers", the fact that they mentioned all the listed numbers are square numbers, which has nothing to do with the question, makes everything confusing because now you think the question is more complicated than it actually is.
The question is mathematical wrong since A)16 is the sum of squares of (√12)^2 + (2)^2 B)25 = 3^2 + 4^2 D)49 = (√40)^2+(3)^2 And there are infinite possibilities for each option. For B)25 to be correct, the question should have been some what like this:- Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of squares of two distinct smaller square integers/whole numbers/natural number. For those who do not know the meaning of integers, whole numbers, natural numbers please refer your maths books or Google.
Ankur Sharma it was implied that all numbers had to be integers, but not outright stated. While technically you are correct, you are overthinking it and that is not what they meant to ask
Flat Box Cross "Perfect square number" is redundant. Either "perfect square" or "square number" are fine. They are interchangeable. You did not contribute anything to the meaning of the question. The question is not poorly worded at all.
@QuantumHornet Square numbers are integers. That is the definition of a square number. Therefore, it is explicitly stated. It is your fault if you do not know the definition of a square number.
@Ankur Sharma Your version of the question is so long that it wouldn't even fit in the text box. Go look up what a square number is because you don't know what it is. Lethargica said the same thing you did 4 years ago.
Also the logical approach here if you dont know the answer is to ask yourself: Whats my current location? If it's USA then you should know the answer that audience picked is deffinatley not the correct one
To be fair it was a pretty weirdly worded question. People who read that will instantly have their mind wander to 2 IDENTICAL, smaller squared numbers. Which isnt the case but a reasonable assumption.
DynamicWorlds did II not specify that I knew America isn’t a race? Anyways, I guess racism wasn’t a good choice of words, but still, it’s stereotypical to refer to idiocy and American as synonyms. I’ll edit it so that I don’t annoy any others. This thread is a shitshow anyways
MuzicNation Official have you read any of my replies? I haven’t done anything to discuss or generalize India. I never even mentioned India for gods sake! And yet both of you are here saying that just because a group from my country may do something rude, or may have a misconception on another country or group, that I am to blame?
Say USA Spanish speaking countries are teach that America is a continent and includes North, South and Central America so when someone says "America" we will always mistake it
ishu rao - Yes, that would be correct for AmUrica, & that is exasperating and embarrassing for the whole of the USA. But let us distinguish between AmUrica & America. We are two separate nations within one. Just know that those of us in America saw the correct answer immediately. I haven’t even watched the video. The thumbnail shows the answer (B) quite plainly.
I clicked to see the comments. They don’t disappoint.
Bilbo Baggins - Knock it off. You have no idea how wealthy some Indians are. I’ve seen it personally and it’s every bit as insane lavish as the richest American.
Carlos Emilio Salazar Mendez I was homeschooled never learned this from what I remember 😂 I'm going to school to be a Doctor so luckily I don't need this kind of math but thank you. I got it after I saw the answer then realized what the question was asking. 😂
Carlos Emilio Salazar Mendez The question was worded horribly. Haven’t seen pothag in years. Most people would have gotten it if it was worded sensibly. Get off the high horse, Jose.
Kallsin He didn't understand the question he could have asked for clarification, that isn't what happened here, but you tell me, what would've been the appropiate way to word the question?
Yet everyone wants to be us. Your name sounds like the 10's of thousands of illegals that try to cross over to be U.S. citizens every month. Stay out stinky.
I’m good at math and I guessed 16 as well. Seems like the only one you could square twice lol that question was worded badly. When she said the answer I was like wtf that’s cheating lol.
I'm not a native speaker but I thought the question was worded just fine. Basically you have this information: - you're looking for an integer which is the result of another integer multiplied by itself; - that number is also equal to the sum of two integers, e.g. 2 and 3, multiplied by themselves. How else do you fit that into a relatively short, readily understandable sentence using words the average high school graduate is supposed to know?
hiro takeda You hate U.S. because you ain't U.S. We set the bar and we are the straw that stirs the drink. Stay out, we don't want anymore people here.
Carlos Emilio Salazar Mendez Since one American couldn’t answer a math question on national TV then the entire US educational system must be terrible. Are you sure you aren’t mentally handicapped?
HikariJake How? If you happen to get it right by using the correct line of thought, it can be very difficult to see how others could get the wrong answer.
AmoN to be honest I thought the question was insisting “what square number is the sum of another square number?”, and so I thought A was correct also. Since I was assuming we were using perfect squares, I had thought that root 16 equals 4, and root 4 equals two (where all other solutions wouldn’t have resulted in a whole cube root number). I didn’t understand what the question was asking so I answered incorrectly but at least my math was correct under my assumption
Max DragonSoul I’m going to be honest here. The U.K only averages 2 IQ points higher than the U.S and that’s because the U.S is filled with gangsters who probably average a 50 IQ
Organic Potato There are definitely extremely smart individuals in US but looking at the country as a whole, I highly doubt that IQ is high enough to be considered smart or even good enough honestly.. I would never say this an American if I'm talking to someone in person but I was shocked when I got to interact with some people in US. No offense at all but the only way to solve a problem is starting off with realizing there is a problem. Btw the reason why there are so many world leading IT companies is because US has a very few smart people who are capable of leading the company and enough smart Indians, Chinese, Koreans,etc. that will actually do all the work for the industry
The only reason USA has had so much entrepreneural success is that it got lucky during the second world war due to its strategic positioning and many of the greatest minds of Europe migrated to US to escape Nazis.
shubham joshi within a minute is insanely slow that is legitimately garbage if they are above the age of 14 and not mentally challenged. About a second is all it takes for anybody who knows this. Its a very well known pythagorean triple.
It is just the pythagorean theorem my dude. Simple stuff. Obviously normal people would have forgotten that, but i, still being in school, and bring a math nerd, remember it. The question is just asking “which of the following numbers is the sum in a pythagorean triple”
Dude anybody wouldve answered that in like 15sec max, thats like 1 +1 for us. We have been getting the same numbers for pythagorous theorem throughout school
@Traumatized Wick @Crypto Master Yeah thats why more than half of the audience from your garbage country didnt know the answer and an Indian guy runs the website youre posting your stupid and ignorant comment on lol.
I disagree. I can understand why people don't understand what the question was asking, but that comes from not reading it carefully or from not knowing the terminology. It does not result from ambiguity.
"But also if you are an illogical person, you wouldn't know that the two square numbers didn't have to be the same"
What in the question implies that you need to add a number to itself?
The question was ambiguous but for a different reason. It's a bit pedantic, but all the answers are technically correct it was never stated it had to be the sum of two squares of integers.
For example 16 = 8+8 and 8 = (2√2)^2. It's pedantic, but what can you expect from a mathematician?
***** Well, the definition of a "square number" is the square of an integer, so the word "integer" doesn't explicitly need to be stated in the question.
MuffinsAPlenty As I said it's pedantic, but sue me I did 4 years of a Maths degree and it's just a part of mathematics.
It is commonly understood that "square number" represents the square of an integer, but you can technically consider square numbers on any possible numerical system. For example 7 is a square number in the ring of integers modulo 9 (4 * 4 = 16 == 7 mod 9). Any mathematical definition is relative to it's premises, and the premise that we are dealing with the ring of integers is not necessarily true for this question.
I concede that the use of "square number" in the question is pretty unambiguous here, but I couldn't help but point out the pedantic ambiguity that I instinctively saw.
***** Yes, sometimes words can be redefined based on the context or convenience, etc. However, if someone is using a nonstandard definition of a term, the responsibility of making clear the nonstandard definition lies with the person using the nonstandard definition.
But let's take your ambiguous claim a bit further. For example, if "square number" is ambiguous because you could choose a different ring from the standard definition, wouldn't specifying "integer" be ambiguous too? What if someone wanted to interpret "integer" to be a Gaussian integer, for example? Then 16 is a sum of two "square numbers" since 5^2 + (3i)^2 = 16 and both 5 and 3i are Gaussian integers. Or what if they wanted to interpret "integer" to be an element of the ring of algebraic integers of any number field? For example, the number field Q(sqrt{2}) has ring of integers Z[sqrt{2}]. Then your earlier example of (2sqrt{2})^2 + (2sqrt{2})^2 = 16 still works, even if "integer" is specified.
And who's to say they might not choose a completely different meaning for the word "sum"? Why not use the sum in the tropical algebra? Then 16 is very easily a sum of square numbers since 4^2 + 5^2 = min{16, 25} = 16 in the tropical algebra.
Are you expecting someone to start by listing the axioms of ZFC (or GBN or whatever set theory they should choose to use), then constructing the natural numbers, then the integers, then the rational numbers, then the real numbers, going through all of the basic definitions of real analysis and measure theory, etc. before they can begin to talk about Lp spaces? This is an absurdity, but by your argument, if they don't do all of this background work every time they are giving a talk, publishing a paper, etc., then their work is technically ambiguous.
When the term "square number" is being used, the standard definition is a square element in the ring of integers. Yes, you can have square elements in other rings. But by using the word "number" rather than the word "element" we are dealing with a very particular ring.
And you'll find this happening all the time. You can define the notion of a prime element in an arbitrary commutative semiring, but when you use the term "prime number," you are specifically referring to primes in the semiring of natural numbers. Similarly, you can define a notion of a transcendental or algebraic element over an arbitrary field extension, but when you use the term "algebraic number" or "transcendental number," you are specifically referring to elements of the field of real numbers or the field of complex numbers which are algebraic or transcendental over the field of rational numbers.
MuffinsAPlenty You're entirely correct. That was roughly the point I was making in that technically there is ambiguity, but only at the extreme end. It was nothing more than a fun point.
ayy lmao😂 I mean😂 yeah i definitely😂 meant square😁 root😁😁 haha😅 silly me😁 how can I😄 be mistaken 👍 👍 good shit 👌👌 if i dooo say so myself 😬 (chorus: "right there") 😜 that's what i'm 🤔 💀 talking about 😏 😏 mhmmmm Yeahhhh 😫 good shit 💪 💪 💪
> "But also if you are an illogical person, you wouldn't know that the two square numbers didn't have to be the same"
Let me demonstrate with an example.
"Two birds sit on a tree..."
OMG how can that be since things are equal by default, like is there one bird sitting in two places at once or what but that violates the Pauli exclusion principle of quantum mechanics....
Preston Granger people were "mislead" because they do not understand the definition of certain terminology's. That does not mean the question is misleading
Preston Granger then tell me, what is misleading? Because all I can see from the comments is people having different (wrong) opinions of the definition of square numbers.
1 like
Kuo Lee2016-12-10 16:51:40 (edited 2016-12-10 16:51:53 )
Preston Granger "which one of these square numbers happens to be the sum of 2 smaller square numbers" unless youre as brain damaged as the audience and the contestant you should be able to know the answer in 2 seconds
BustaDeluxe 0 is a squared number, but the question says sum of 2 smaller squared numbers, 4^2+0^2=16, you're right, but it's not sum of "2 smaller square numbers" 16=16
This is an easy question and anybody who is 12 years or older should be able to answer this. A sum is the answer to an addition statement and a square is assumed to be a perfect square where the square root of the square is an integer.
LaekoStormz this is a discussion thread, if you are not interested then just don't reply instead of being unnecessarily rude with comments that add nothing to the discussion.
it may have been a bit hard to understand, like it took me a minute to understand what the question meant, but in no way was it "misleading". Misleading means it leads you to believe something other than what is true, but the question didnt do that at all. Either it was a comprehensive issue or math one.
I think you are confused. The square number you are talking about in this example is 16. But 16 is not smaller than 16, so it is not allowed. Because the question said that the square number has to be a number that is smaller than the sum. This is what Kuo Lee was trying to tell you.
There's nothing wrong with the wording of the question. Anyone who knows anything about Maths know the word 'SUM' is another word for 'TOTAL' so the answer was simple. 2x2 = 4, 3x3 = 9, 4x4 = 16, 5x5 = 25.....Which 2 square numbers add together to make another square number? Easy 9+16 = 25
It's like on the gameshow 'Pointless' the other day with 3 questions about tv soaps. The 1st one wanted the 'actors/actress' names, and the next two wanted the 'character' names, but because the contestants didn't listen to the questions properly they thought all 3 required the actor/actress' names. They got lucky as out of the 3 actor names they gave for each of the 3 questions, the one what required actors names was correct and won them the money. The other 2 were wrong because they didn't listen or read the question. Thats just 1 example of contestants I've seen recently not paying attention on quiz shows. Quiz shows always make the odd easy question slightly more complicated to put doubt in your head. Like if I asked "Which ship hit an iceberg and sank in 1912?" everyone would know its the Titanic, but by saying something like "Which ship set off from Southampton to New York and sank in when it hit an iceberg in 1912?" It would put a little bit of doubt in your head.
OMG why does everyone keep saying this? What kind of joke easy math tests do Americans have in their middle schools? I would've gotten this right away. It's a very clear question
The answer is a square number (The answer is a number that has a whole number square root)
that is the sum (meaning addition, not multiplication or it would be "product")
of two smaller square numbers (they also had to be square numbers)
In grade 7 algebra they always made us do right angle triangles, and I always remembered the easiest right angle triangle was the "3cm, 4cm, 5cm" triangle because it didn't involve any fractions. 3squared = 9, 4squared = 16. 9+16=25. square root of 25 = 5.
And so, 25 is the answer. They worded it perfectly fine, nothing they said was inconsistent, and I challenge you to provide a better worded version of the question, but really he's an adult, he SHOULD be able to do this if he remembers his middle school math.
You say that the definition of a "square number" is the square of an integer. That is how you learnt it. I'd say a "square number" is product of 2 numbers multiplied by itself.(Product of 3 numbers in case of a cube and so on) Like finding an area of a square. x^2 is x*x. From the way we learnt, half the time we never gave a fuck if we had an integer as a square or not. We would write it as an irrational and it would still be right. If we start including irrationals, every answer will be correct. So yes mentioning they would be an integer is necessary.
Since when did we start using language as a means of expressing maths? Give people an equation and if they cannot solve it then you could say they are bad at math. But if I give you a word problem in russian and fail to solve it, I wouldn't blame that your maths is bad. I'd say your russian is bad.
Or, as an analogy, you see these question floating around the internet which go like 1 + 2 * 3 = ? You'd say the answer is 7 following the BODMAS rule. But you're in my quiz show and I'd say you're wrong because the answer is 9. (1 + 2) * 3 = 9. But hey I didn't use parentheses but that's not my problem. You're too stupid to understand what I meant.
Being not familiar with english terminology I read square as the "quadrier" instinctively as 1 word meanings are formed in 1 word in german so for someone who didn't grew up learning math in english this surely confused me cause the translation I used also gave a possible solution (A). I didn't think of "Quadradzahlen" also there is a common term used as for "quadrierte Zahl" which if they just had used squared whole number I don't think such a lamguage barrier could happen. So yeah misleadibg to not native speaker.
√3²+4²=√25 lol This kind of mathematics is done by 6th grade child in india Because india is a place where one of the great mathematician born i am talking about sir ramanujan 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Dibas Sarkar Rightly said ! Indians bragging too much in the comments section . Criticizing the audience so that it makes them feel better of themselves
Omg hahaha, after reading your comment I saw that most of those comments are from us Indians!!! xD
I'm pretty sure people (not only Indians) are aghast because of the audience poll aspect, otherwise this video would have been just like other "Who wants to be a millionaire" fail videos. :P
@Shikhar Dahal But it's a fact that most of the people from the audience were ridiculously stupid. I mean, I understand the person being in lot of pressure but the audience was not and could easily think out the answer in a minute. And it's astonishing that 50% of them voted A. Most of the people present there were actually stupid.
FACTZ OVERDOSE May be but it still doesn’t make sense that indian people bragging about their superiority in mathematics. You may be superior in mathematics but not in all fields so bragging doesn’t make much of a sense
Ashutoshh Guurjar - Who called India “a country of snakes”? I tried finding that quote on the internet, but no luck. It’s obviously an offensive thing to say, so, I’m interested in who said it.
I’m an American, and that’s only because I was born here. The good and bad things other Americans do says nothing about me. There’s not much to brag about these days, but let’s say I was impressed by our huge military. I didn’t create the American military, so why should I brag about it? The only person a person should brag about is themselves, and even then it’s impolite.
@Var R you don't know about ramanunjan the man who knews infinity which gives the solution of sum to infinite which is -1/12,so how can you say indians are not good in maths
10 likes
Var R2018-10-31 01:33:09 (edited 2018-10-31 03:18:58 )
@SHIVENDRA SRI. you are clearly ignorant LMAO. That's called sum to infinite series . For convergent series the sum to infinite could be any real number . It just shows you don't know math. Ramanujan is a genius. It doesn't mean all Indians are . Infact Indians never won the international math Olympiad. the test to which India sends it's best every year .
'I know we're good at mathematics'. Hmm, I myself am Indian and I do know we have quite bright mathematicians, but I do not see us doing well in competitions such as IMO.
@Var R bro then u don't know about Subhash khot..the winner of silver medal in two consecutive years 1994 and 1995 in international math Olympiad, and Akshay venkatesh in 1994 of Indian origin..won a bronze medal in international math Olympiad at the age of 12, second youngest to do that..and if Indians are not good in maths...then we would not be a CEO of the world's largest software company Google..(Sunder pichai)..so it's very clear we r good in mathematics.
Noo I'm not good at math even though I'm Indian, (so shame on me now) bt still I knew this one😂 it was a stupid question nt even 7th graders have that simple ques
@prem Kishan lmao India's population is one sixth of the world's population. Shouldn't india win one sixth of medals on average? Why are you pointing sunder pichai lol. How is he related to math? Also Indians can't code. Tell me ONE good software product from India .
@Var R bro, America population is 4.37 percent of world's population, is it win 4.37 percent medal in international math Olympiad?No...so according to your logic no country has won medals in international math Olympiad according to his percentage of population..so no country in the world knows maths? seriously?and without the knowledge of Maths u can't code...and u will not become the CEO of any software company and there are many software start up in India for example..Aujas, canvas flip, canvazify, cloud cherry, cure spring, drona HQ ..and the genius of the world Albert Einstein says without indians we will not be able to reach moon, space.. because we gave the decimal system...and recently a Indian origin boy arnav Sharma beat the iq test of Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking in mensa iq test...so have some knowledge of India bro..then comment.. LoL
@prem Kishan Are you dumb lol? CEOS doesn't code. There is something called Wikipedia to know the facts. Now learn completely about "International math Olympiad" and text here. Your knowledge about how things work in corporations is extremely limited. You need to learn English lol .
@Var R I am answering to everyone who are saying that Indian are not good at Mathematics.
Let me get the facts right Indians have been using mathematics even before most of the people even knew what it was.
The decimal number system in use today was first recorded in Indian mathematics. Indian mathematicians made early contributions to the study of the concept of zero as a number,negative numbers, arithmetic, and algebra.In addition, trigonometry was further advanced in India, and, in particular, the modern definitions of sine and cosine were developed there. From Harrapans to Arya Bhat to Ramanujan we have had a fair deal of share in mathematics as we know it today. We have a majority of scientists, PhDs, CEOs and master students who obviously have a great knowledge. Obviously not everyone in India are good at Maths and I am not saying that we are the best ..I am just saying that we are one of the best in Maths.
@som rawat You cannot expect a country with such past and so high population to be 100% employed. This has nothing to do with maths. Those people don't know how to write a word let alone maths. And why do people in general keep on saying that India is poor and people are unemployed! Why don't you point your fingers to other countries. Don't you know how rich we were! And keep in mind we are the FASTEST growing economy in the world with a very high rate of KPO ( I hope I don't have to explain what KPO MEANS)
Meet Kanodia - It’s important to remember that YOU are 15 and got it right in 30 seconds. That’s pretty impressive by the way! Your accomplishment doesn’t represent the accomplishment of anyone but you. Your teachers and parents clearly helped, but YOU figured out the right answer.
This is an interesting opportunity to ask yourself why you got the right answer so quickly. I’m sure you’ll agree that this question is related to the Pythagorean Theorem, which is often not taught to American students at all - unless they pursue math. I assume you have taken algebra and geometry, which is impressive for your age. You might be thinking “Algebra and geometry are standard subjects for my age”. Yes, but only if you live in high-income areas.
I assume you live in India. You should consider the level of education of the lower 50 percent (of income) in India.
@TheTooginator Pythagoras theorem is AB²+BC²=AC² ( In a Triangle ABC) . Yes you can say the question is a bit related to this but I believe that it is common sense to know that 25= 16+9 ( 4²+3²). Also if you don't know this you can easily check all the numbers very quickly. The options are not too big that it is difficult to calculate the squares. If he had just calculated the squares of first 5 nos he could have easily answered the question. What I mean to say that in general Indians ( and in general Asians) have more focus towards maths and science which makes it easy for us to solve these questions in few seconds...
Arnav Sinha - What you said is true, but you should remember that this fellow was under EXTREME pressure and the host wouldn’t shut up. However, the audience got the wrong answer, which was pretty sad.
@Sherlock stop bragging about ancient achievements lol. Zero is just a visual representation. It's not that math didn't exist before that . Abacus existed centuries before zero lol. Infact India didn't contribute anything to modern mathematics. Indians suck at advanced math lol.
@Var R dumbass population doesn't have to do with anything. You can populate pakistan as much as you want but the only thing you will get is more terrorists. You got have resources to thrive. Dumbasses like u don't have slight commonsense.
Arnav Sinha - off topic a bit, but I have a question for you. I just watched the miniseries “The Mahabharata” (1989, in English) and I thought it was great! My question for you is: what do modern Indians think about The Mahabharata? Do modern Indians think it’s a great story? Is it a story you grew up with? I’ve seen interviews with Indians about The Mahabharata, but I would be interested in your opinion.
Also, I think you should consider writing an article about how Americans could become more interested in math and science. Personally, I think the problem is that Americans don’t respect mathematicians and scientists. This wasn’t always the case. In the mid twentieth century, Einstein was one of the most respected people in America. What changed?
Leap Of faith All numbers that can be plotted on a number line are real numbers(including 0). Numbers like square root of -1 or infinity are not real though.
Leap Of faith bruh your maths is weak too Real no.=rational +irrational no. Means every known no. Even it is in root or in rational or decimal form it is real no. Basic 6th grade stuff
Leap Of faith in maths there is no such thing called nothingness. Everything has a significance. And 0 is damn important.
If u go out of maths, then also nothingness has a significance. Everything in the entire universe spiritually, scientifically, mathematically has got a significance.
And ur statement " nothingness is nothing to me" doesnt make sense
From all of discussion i got you all and all of you are wrong...as if you think that 16 should be the ans....but you need to read the question properly...then you would know that you are wrong...as it is asked two smaller square as 4 is not less than 4 so how do you consider 16 as the ans
@MagnusVN no only option B that is 25 is right because the question is a square number which is equal to the sum of two smaller square numbers. If you consider one square number to be zero then the other will be the same as the answer. Example 0^2+16^2=16. This is not valid because 16 isn't smaller than 16. So 25 is the only right answer
@Mmmmm0d 1 is square number not -1. First you should have clarity about what is square number. In (-3)^2=9 here 9 is square number not -3. Similarly(-1)^2 = 1, 1 is square no. Not -1. 1 and -1 are two different numbers
@Upendra Yadav Its not explicitly stated but it can be implied they are talking about perfect squares (especially when all the answers are perfect). This is a common math trivia question.
if someone has to choose 1 correct option then it would definitely a pythagorian triplet(if in options). I'm just trying to say that others are not wrong, its just that 25 is more correct.
Anirudh Kumar the definition of a square number is an integer that is the square of another integer. The word “square numbers” implies 1, 4, 16, 25, etc. If they had reworded the problem not using the phrase “square number” or “perfect square,” he could’ve made an argument.
@Sarthak Jain no, that's the Pythagorean theory. That true equation will be everything you wrote, but without the square at the end, because than that'd mean you're squaring that number that's in the end.
√8 isn't a squared term. It is exactly opposite of what is asked. Also sum of two smaller square numbers is asked. 16=4^2. Not smaller but equal. √8 again not a square number. If you want to joke, atleast get the joke right, dimwit. 😒
Correct but the question said 2 smaller squares. I thought it was C because 36 squared is six then six squared is 3, and if you square 3 you get a decimal
Leap Of faith bruh 0 is definitely a real number. Real numbers are almost everything (square root of pi, one divided by e^e, etc) except square root of 1, infinity (which isn't a number to begins with), quaternions, and other complex things you don't need to worry about
Leap Of faith it says smaller square number so A^2+B^2=C^2 given that A and B are smaller than C. 0^2 + 4^2=16 is wrong since B=C thus 25 is the correct answer
the questions says 2 SMALLER numbers so 0^2 + 4^2 is not valid since 4^2 is 16 and about your second answer it may be true, but the question probably means to different numbers. x^2+y^2=16 where x not equal to y and x , y < 4
all the ones replying here r idiot trying to be geniuses and make u think u r stupid. they all just talking shits here all of this r bullshits like wtf? i say here 0 is a real number and im a genius because thats bullshit and ofcourse u will have no clue what im talking about. stop pretending mfs! and atleast im honest😂👍👍 haha peace out✌️
I mean using that logic you could justify that every square (abd non-square) number in existence can be shown as the sum of 2 smaller squares. This question should be more specific in stating that the smaller numbers must be positive integers but its safe to assume thats what they meant
They wouldn't allow him or anyone here to argue that 0^2 would work because technically 0^2 would work with all the answers, right? Ie if he chose 36, he'd argue (0)^2+(6)^2=36 with the smaller squared numbers being 0 and 6. If he chose 16, he'd argue (like some of y'all are arguing) (0)^2+(4)^2=16 with the smaller squared numbers being 0 and 4. My point is that they needed to avoid 0 being the argument. 25 is the more 'intelligent' answer if u will. 4 and 3 have more of a value than 0. 0 of anything is nothing, right?
Dude it didn’t say sum of real numbers. It said sum of SQUARED numbers. Jesus this comment is dumb and the fact that it has 1000 upvotes concerns me for the future.
How the hell can such a comment get over 1000 upvotes? If you don't even know how a square number is defined better don't start writing some bullshit about it... A square number is the product of an INTEGER multiplied with itself and only an integer, not fractions or irrational numbers. The question and answers are perfectly fine.
What they meant doesn't matter. They didn't say that. All answers are correct the way they phrased it. They are even correct in an infinite amout of ways. Neither of the options Anirudh suggested are solutions though.
The question isn't to do with Pythagoras' Theorem... Yes a triangle with sides 3, 4, and 5 constitutes being Pythagorean, however no knowledge whatsoever of said theory is needed to perform the basic arithmetic of the question. There are no big or fancy words used in the question either like you suggest in a later comment (in fact you're trying to introduce some if we're being picky here...)
I honestly thought that they meant two identical square numbers and I was highly confused because that wouldn't be possible. It only took reading it for the 10th time to realize they meant ANY square number. I understand that they probably purposely didn't say "Pythagorean Theorem" because that would then be too easy (as long as you know math). But yes I do indeed think it is poorly worded.
Percussive Chippy it's not poorly worded at all. I've showed this to my friends and they all said 25 because 9 + 16 = 25. most people will just go start adding squares. 1, 4, 9, 16, 25. which of these numbers add up to another square.
Well when I first read the question I thought that square root of 16 is 4, and 4 is also 2 times 2. On the other hand I couldn't reformulate the question so that you can understand what they really wanted to say, but I guess they could've written 'which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two other smaller square numbers?' Or sth like this
+Andreea Sandu Huh? I don't know if I should sense sarcasm in that comment or just a lack of observation on your part.. Coz that is literally what they asked. Literally.
Robert Kelevra I'm just saying in front of that many people, I would have brain-farted just as much as he did, so I cannot blame him for getting the answer wrong. He should have walked away with the money imo
Jonah Duclos: ionut mihalache wanted to point out that the question is perfectly correct and clear even for a non-native English speaker, and I absolutely agree. Sorry guys, but if you find the question "confusing and misleading", the reason is in your math skills, not the wording. It's not a shame not to be good at math, but don't blame the discipline.
I agree with you because the question should have looked like this: Which of this numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller distinct non-zero square integer numbers ?
Dorin Gaiu Nuts. If one of the numbers were zero, the other weren't smaller, which is explicitly prescribed. This is needless, as is "distinct" - there isn't any solution with identic smaller squares, and there couldn't be any. Those redundant information would actually be misleading and confusing.
Nathan Seltzer And everyone that gives you a thumbs up is as arrogant as you are. Congrats old man who thinks he has something to prove on the Internet!
Not at all? The question couldnt be phrased in a better way and the answer is really easy.... 3 4 and 5 are the most common pythagorean numbers, I guessed that 25 would be the answer before they even showed the possible answers...
m es i think people are just thrown off by "square numbers" being used twice. if you're feeling pressured, on the spot, your mind can fog up and get confused easily. It would take an English professor to break down the role of each word in the question and maybe figure out an even simpler way to phrase it, but I doubt you'd see any of those around here, for obvious reasons.
John Romano It doesn't help that there is a time limit on each question.
When I went through the video, my brain first thought that it (square number)x2= answer. That line of thinking mislead me long enough to have run out of time.
P.S. I used to be really good at school math, now though I'm not bad, but I usually just am worried about functional math.
UnfadingChunk12 No, I don't know this. Please explain how to figure it out. I already know it is not necessarily the number/2, each half being a square. Each of these numbers is a square, but they are asking about Summed parts of it, so that piece of information is actually irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the two numbers it consists of are squares. I'm assuming of Whole numbers, not some crazy fraction.
Aaron Ingebrigtsen This is how you go about doing this question.
"Which one of these squares is the sum of two smaller squares"
SUM refers to the number resulting from an addition.
To square a number means to multiply it by itself, so a square number is a number you can get from multiplying a number by itself. X^2 means squaring X. It's like saying X multiplied by X. ^ is the hat key. (Shift - 6: on my keyboard)
If he was keeping the perfect squares in his head, that would have been easily solved. They are all squares, but only one of them is the sum of two smaller squares, and when I looked at a multiplication table, which of course shows the perfect squares, the answer was obvious.
Stefanel If you're going to try to prove a point, don't contradict yourself by dragging Chemistry into the mix. Chemistry is very math oriented, and if you suck at math, you will fail as a chemist.
Jonoah de Groot I was waiting for someone like you from the very first moment i pressed the "post" button. Sorting that out, clearly makes you a genius, and the terms do not apply to you.
Stefanel Haha all good. I wasn't trying to make you out to be a knob or anything of the like either. Some people are talented with mathematics, and others are not. It is not the foundation of intelligence though.
Dorin Gaiu "non-zero" is not needed since it already said "smaller" which implies that none of the numbers can be zero because if one would be zero the other one would not be smaller than the original one.
Keine Angabe No , two smaller square numbers does not mean that zero is not allowed . Even if 0 is not allowed i can pick infinitely many non-zero different squares that in sum will result any positive number. As, i said earlier , the question was not formulated correctly dumbass.
yeah, because TWO smaller squares allows you to pick infinitely many smaller squares. TWO = infinity, hmm? If you take zero as one square the other one has to be the number itself and the number itself is not smaller than itself. This means zero is not an option. It does not have to be excluded seperately because it already follows. If you really think that the text is misleading then name another answer that fits the text. OT: why do you take this personal? I am trying to teach you something about a topic you obviously have no knowledge about at all. I would be glad if someone explained to me in a constructive way that i am wrong.
I can't believe zero is even being discussed in the context of Squares. Anything times 0 is 0, that is one of the first things we learn in school about multiplication. Squares are multiplication of a number against itself, the power of 2, x^2. If X^2=0, then X=0. Which means nothing has been squared, which means zero is not an option. O.o o.O
Not being good at math is not what makes someone stupid. Being stubbornly willfully ignorant is my definition of stupid. When someone tells you that you are wrong about something, explains it, and Proves it, and you just totally ignore it, that means you are stupid.
I know, it's hard to accept when you are wrong about something, we reflexively defend our egos, we experience cognitive dissonance, but the Smart people overcome those things when they are convinced that they Were wrong, then study and Become right.
The video posted shows how being bad at math can be bad for you. It does not say being bad at math makes you stupid.
Dorin Gaiu You obviously don't know what a square number is. Let me quote Wikipedia for you: "In mathematics, a square number [...] is an integer that is the square of an integer" That's the definition. So go away with random real numbers, they don't matter here. Of course, if you don't know the definition of a square number then the question is not well formulated, that's your problem though and not the questions's one ;)
"You don't even know what is a real number." Hehe, I doubt that one. This is what math students learn in the first week at university.
Square numbers are the product of an integer times itself.
sqrt(2) and sqrt(3) are not integers.
Therefore (sqrt(2))^2, or 2, is not a square number. Nor is sqrt(3).
If this wasn't the case, every conceivable non-negative real number would be a square number, and the term would be much less useful.
There really is nothing wrong with the wording of the question. They don't spoon feed you on this show, if you don't know your stuff you get the question wrong. That would be the case with the majority of people who aren't familiar with some basic math.
Dorin Gaiu Uhm... I am not a "tard", it's just that I never got past Algebra 101. I know what a "perfect square" is though. It's a whole number that is the result of another whole number being multiplied against itself. Not a difficult concept. Most math concepts elude me beyond High School Algebra. The question was not incredibly misleading, he just didn't have the perfect squares memorized, or he was too nervous. When I'm too nervous my brain goes blank, can't think. Doesn't mean he's stupid. He's human.
The question was so clear that even I understood it. I say it becouse my native language is spanish (so sry if I wrote something incorrectly) On the other hand, the question was fairly easy, 'couse one can remember from the school than when the hicks from a triangle are 3 and 4, the hypotenuse is 5 (9+16=25).
Spy015 Listen. The question is missing some important point. 4 * 4 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 16 5 * 5 = 3 * 3 * 4 * 4 = 25 the question have to be more specific, like "sum of two smaller and different square number"
There is no summation of square number just products. A square number is a number which you can get by the product of a number times the number itself. In other words X*X = Square. You can also think of the number as the sides of a...Square. So the area of the square is the square number and the sides of the square is the X
Jonah Duclos yeah I was confused for a while what the question was asking me to do, but basically it’s asking what other 2 numbers when squared, add up to one of the square numbers in the question... So 3x3=9 And 4x4=16 16+9=25
idk, 16 is a square because 4x4, and then 4 is also a square because 2x2. Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller squares? well 16 is a square number and is 4x4 (ignoring the word sum, or treating the word sum as a non-math related term, which in hindsight is obviously a mistake but yeah) 4 and 4 are the smaller squares because of 2x2 totalling 4.
At last I found many of them. I can choose whoever I want. Ok listen: Which one of you MATH TEACHERS here in the comments wants a job in "iknoweverythingandimsofast" University?
Theoretically, all the options are correct. The question does not say it has to be the sum of two perfect square numbers. For example, 16=1² +(√ 15)² , 49=(√23 )² +(√26 )² . The list goes on.
@D D A perfect square is the same thing as a perfect square number. They are products of whole, rational numbers multiplied by themselves. What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers.
@D D You never paid attention in an math class nor do you have manners, do you? I'll dumb it down for you.
A perfect square is a NUMBER, that is the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL NUMBER multiplied with itself. This means things like "n*n" where n can be 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n. To say perfect square or perfect square number is synonymous. They are both numbers.
What OP said was that because ANYTHING can be squared, and perfect square wasn't specified, the original question has THEORETICALLY, as in in theory or hypothetically, an infinite amount of answers. You can square PI, 1.25, the square root of 17, and find your way to the answers listed. 17 is a square, the square of the square root of 17, but it's not a perfect square (or perfect square number, whichever you choose to use) because it is not the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL number multiplied with itself, but rather it is essentially the product of a decimal multiplied with itself.
D D2018-10-19 15:55:55 (edited 2018-10-19 15:56:18 )
You didn't understand at all what I am trying to say.
I perfectly know what "square number" is.
I am pointing out that the term "perfect square number" does NOT exist in english language.
Either it's "square number" OR "perfect square". There is no "perfect square number". I am not pointing out at the mathematics when discussing this, I am discussing english vocabulary. You can't just make up terms on your own.
Also, I am a 4th year student in mathematics. The discussion regarding this topic is connected to the number theory, by far the most boring and easiest class I took on my university. I don't need to people to explain to me anything regarding this topic.
No. No. No. A square number/perfect square is an INTEGER. It is defined as n^2, where n is an integer and hence n^2 as well. Root 15 is not an integer. Only B from those options fits this criteria. These terms have precise definitions - you can't just impose your own opinion. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
@D D As a computer systems engineer who has done work for General Dynamics and had offers from Beoing and several from Amazon, and took an abundance of different math courses, I can tell you that I don't know how I can make this any more simple to you than I already have.
A perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. If I said red and red color, those are synonymous, red is a color, adding the word color at the end doesn't make it mean anything different.
Anything can be squared though. You don't always deal with perfect squares. The simplest example would be the quadratic formula. That does not always square root evenly, squaring the end value wouldn't give you a whole number. The term you'd get in the square root of the formula isn't always perfect square to be rooted leaving you with a decimal.
How about even simpler? If you go into your calculator and type in a random number with a decimal, like 3.68265, you can use the square function on it. It doesn't give you an error, it has a square, but would it be a perfect square, no. Likewise, because no one knows what root 15 or root 27 is off the top of their heads apart from it being a decimal, you just write it as root 15 squared and root 27 squared. Not a perfect square but a square.
Notice: I am using the term perfect square instead of perfect square number throughout because it's faster and one less word. Also, for someone who claims to be a senior in college, the level of maturity and respect you show is highly lacking, immature, and downright pathetic for someone of your stature.
you keep discussing the mathematical side of this whole mess, yet i am not trying to even touch it.
i am perfectly aware of what square number is.
Also, you, as a computer systems designer, don't have enough mathematical knowledge to compete against me, no matter how many math courses you took. I am not bragging, and I am not implying your uni career was easier, I am telling you that mathematics is not something you majored in. It's simple as that.
I've touched some of the mathematical branches that can only be done in a mathematics major, from topology to set theory. None of those are teached in IT universities.
Just read what Charles Luo already wrote. Even he linked you two links, but either you are too dumb to understand what is written in those links or you are just lazy to open them. It's simple as that.
"A perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. "
That's the whole point I am trying to teach you. You can't simply add "number" at the end of "perfect square", because there is no such term in english vocabulary.
There are only two terms: "a perfect square" AND "a square number".
Both of these terms are EQUAL (they both have the same definition).
We provided links to those definitions 5 TIMES ALREADY.
@D D You are a very ignorant person, and there's no chance of helping you understand such a simple concept that other people in this thread have understood. I've given you example after example in the simplest forms I could manage. A 4th grader would understand at this point.
As a last resort, I'll say it like this: perfect square = Coke, perfect square number = Coca-Cola. Coke and Coca-Cola are the same thing, used interchangeably, and are synonymous. One just has the extra term. Likewise, perfect square and perfect square number are the same thing. They may be used interchangeably and are synonymous. A perfect square is a number. What do you get when take out "is a"? A "perfect square number". What is so hard about understanding how basic English works?
Let me copy something you've written in your first comment:
"What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers."
No, it can't. This is the problem of the whole discussion and mess you've made from the beginning. Because of your lack of knowledge in the field of mathematics, I have to explain why this statement is completely incorrect.
It was stated in the question that you need to find "a square number".
You are implying that any positive real number is a square number because you can eventually find the root of it.
That is not fucking true. It is the 6th time I am telling you this.
Why is that not true?
Because it is mathematically defined what "square number" is.
Let me copy you the definiton on the wikipedia:
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer"
So, tell me, how is it even remotely possible for other answers to be TRUE in this particular question in the video?
Is number 15 a square number? Of course it is not, because, even though that number has a root, that root is NOT AN INTEGER. Therefore, 15 can't be a square number.
@D D 15 would be a squared number of the root of 15 squared. That is 3.873 (rounded the decimal) squared. The value being squared is not a whole, rational number, so the product 15 is not a perfect square. However, you can still square the 3.873 to get 15. A perfect square is a number that is the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL number multiplied with itself. What is a whole, rational number? Numbers like 1, 3, 15, 38, 1047, etc. Ie, they don't have a decimal or a fraction.
However that does not mean that numbers that do have decimals or fractions cannot be squared. They just won't be perfect squares. PI, 27.28573, even root values can be squared such as the root of 15, which is a decimal. Something like 3.87..., but typically root numbers are simply written as root x squared to save time. Are these squares? Yes! Are they perfect squares? No!
Again, using the term perfect square in place of perfect square number to save time in typing.
This is the last comment I'm making on this subject. If you haven't understood English by now, you won't ever what with your stubborn ways. I'm not wasting any more of my time and energy explaining basic math to you. I have more important work to do. Happy commenting 4th year math student!
11 likes
D D2018-10-19 22:01:03 (edited 2018-10-19 22:02:18 )
Holy fucking shit, I swear I have never met anyone dumber than you on youtube. It is literally impossible for someone to be THAT stupid to not understand a simple fucking definition of "square number".
AGAIN, I am going to copy the official definition of a SQUARE NUMBER:
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer. A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer. A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer. A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer. A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
SQUARE NUMBER = PERFECT SQUARE
Read that, slowly, for 5 times. Read that until it gets to you. Please, for the love of God, try to understand one simple sentence. It can't be simpler than that.
How is it even fucking possible that you majored in anything regarding engineering, when somebody lacks even 1% of logical thinking is beyond me.
A 5 year old would already understand what "square number" is.
SQUARES is not equal to SQUARE NUMBERS
You can't simply add words into terms and think they are the SAME
That's why I told you already that PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER is not a WORD in ENGLISH LANGUAGE, same as how SQUARE is not an equal term to SQUARE NUMBER.
D D Lol I said I would stop, but this comment you made is too funny. Riddle me this. What do you think the definition of an integer is? It is a WHOLE number, a number WITHOUT FRACTIONS. More definitively, it is a 32-bit whole number. What is a fraction? A number with a decimal. Can you square fractions? Yes, you can! If you actually did any of the math you claim to, you'd see that you work more with fractions and decimals than you do integers. So how do you differentiate between squaring an integer and squaring a non-integer value? Well squaring an integer results in another integer, a perfect square number. A number that is a perfect square. What do you get when you square a non-integer value? A non-perfect square. Or simply a square number. A number that is squared, but not perfect. Are you seeing how English and math coexist now? Also, considering that dictionaries don't define more than a single word at a time, neither perfect square or perfect square number, nor square number will show up, so... 🤷♀️
Your anger and poor understanding of basic topics is truly laughable, yet sad and exhausting.
TheCelestialFox, any number can be squared, but not every number is a square number. The definition of a square number has been given to you several times. That being the case, you must be trolling, and so I won't be feeding you from this point on, and I suggest D D refrain from feeding you as well.
@Nicky Tannock That's the very point I'm making. Any number can be squared, however there are numbers that when squared result in a perfect square number, and others that when squared result in a square number that isn't perfect. Depending on if you are using an integer or a decimal, you will get one or the other. The fact that basic math and English have failed you both is astounding. And simply because someone doesn't agree with what you say because you don't understand the definitions you yourself provided (seems like a case of the copy-paste without actually reading and understanding what you're using like a lazy high schooler) doesn't make one a troll. It's a simple difference in views.
There's a difference in products when you square an integer and when you square a decimal, and by your own admission, they are not all square numbers, they are not all perfect square numbers, they have different characteristics that means they have different names to differentiate them.
I've already stated all I can in a respectful manner with utmost patience, it ends here though. You two enjoy your misguided ways of mathematics and English. I'll be enjoying my weekend from here on out. Thank you for the somewhat interesting debate though.
So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."
@jz I'm saying that absolutely any number can be squared, however, HOWEVER, a perfect square is the multiplcation of an integer, which is defined as a whole number, a value without fractions or decimals, with itself.
However, you can also square numbers that are NOT integers, like the decimals you presented. What would you call the products that result from the multiplication of a decimal with itself? They certainly wouldn't be integers. Thedefore it does not fit with the definition provided. It certainly would not be a perfect square by your own admission, that would nullify the mention that the numbers being multiplied have to be integers.
Work the rest out for yourself please, I can't make things simpler than I have already tried.
What I'm saying is that perfect square numbers are those that are integers from integers. You will never get a non-integer value from squaring an integer. But you will always get a non-integer value when squaring a non-integer. It's not a perfect square, it's a non-perfect square, so it's a simply a square number because something, not an integer, was squared to get the value. It's still a square, but it's not a perfect square. And adding number at the end of these terms is acceptable because they are indeed numbers.
I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.
After reading half of this disscussion may I just ask why you all aren't cooperating. This conversation could've gone way more peacefull (You know... without insulting people as having less knowledge than a first grader) and you would also be able to find a solution.
The discussion can't go without insulting when you provide proof of something to be true, and the other side does not understand it, especially if the proof is consisted of one single sentence.
Just imagine this.
You keep saying a duck is not a bird.
I keep posting you the official definition which shows that duck is a bird.
You keep denying it.
I post the definition of a duck 6 times to you, where it clearly says that a duck is a bird.
You keep denying it.
At that time the insulting should start pretty much.
Janki Sagar, notice that the definition of a "Perfect Square" is the same as the definition of a "Square Number", and there's no definition of a "Perfect Square Number" as being something that is different from either a "Perfect Square" or a "Square Number". All of which is D D's point.
24 likes
Very good2018-10-20 19:01:30 (edited 2018-10-20 19:01:55 )
You've no idea what square number means apparently. Almost only D D in the reply chain knows what he's talking about
yidingcao Besides if all the options were “theoretically correct” why were they wrong? The people who make these questions have to be very precise with their wording and answer choices to avoid any sort of controversy.
Jesus Christ the intelligence is strong in this thread.
Semantically square number = perfect square. And a perfect square is a product of a rational number multiplied itself. Therefore not all of the choices can be a square number.
I'm going to assume 99% of the people in this thread are trolling for the sake of my faith in humanity
PEOPLE! PEOPLE, PEOPLE... calm down. We're on YouTube. There's no need for that. Dear lord. Hahahahaha.
2 likes
Ryan Keith2018-10-21 05:16:34 (edited 2018-10-21 05:17:16 )
No one is becoming the new Einstein because of that. It's simple math, everyone understood what the question wanted from the participant and there's no need to be fuckin literal at those questions. What would you do? Answer: - HUH DUH, EVERY ALTERNATIVE IS CORRECT BECAUSE OF QUIK MAFFS. What would happen? - YOU LOST - Game Fuckin Over. Lolollolol. Everything is situational. If you're smart enough to understand maths deeply, you probably have enough IQ to understand how pointless is to apply that logic at this situation.
In Spanish, it is much more common to hear the term "cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square) than "número cuadrado" (square number). However, the term "número cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square number) is also considered valid. I leave here an extract of the Wikipedia in Spanish: Un número cuadrado perfecto (perfect square number) en matemáticas, o un número cuadrado (square number), es un número entero que es el cuadrado de algún otro.
Maybe all this has been a misunderstanding in the language.
Might be in Spanish, but again, there is no such thing in english vocabulary. I even tried googling it, and went for few pages and didn't see one single result for "perfect square number".
However, that isn't really main topic of the discussion. The main topic is someone misinterpreted "square number".
But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers. Yindingcao is totally correct. All of them are right. It's just that there is a BETTER answer which is 25
@Nicky Tannock they aren't trolling. What he's saying is you can find the root of any positive rational number. Which makes it square. I'm pretty sure the guy being asked didnt really think that far ahead, as I can tell he froze when the word square number was said, suggesting his knowledge in math is very limited, or he's super stressed out. That why he lost at the end
I think I should get a fucking golden medal for this whole discussion.
What amazes me even more that, even though I linked the definition of it 10 times already, and others did as well, there are still people like @Abdalla Ahmed who keep commenting "But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers".
Did people lose their ability to read? Or were they never able to comprehend a sentence in a logic way?
Here are my previous comments in response to hopefully clear things up:
1. So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."
2. I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.
@D D Stop with your childish arrogance dude. You can not be rude with everybody just because you're a "4th year student in mathematics". The only value of math its because we use in Physics as a tool. Otherwise you guys in mathematics have the same status as clowns or actors. Or street singers. Its not really Science.
@Verdi it's selling mathematics short to say its only applications are in physics. Maths is a very absolute science, often much more exact than physics. I study physics but have a great appreciation for maths, even if I often discard everything they say because it's irrelevant to my solution
10 likes
Nick P2018-10-24 13:08:26 (edited 2018-10-24 13:09:10 )
@Verdi As someone who owns a master's degree in mathematics and works as a financial analyst making a lot of money, I can assure you physics is not the only field using math or else I could've easily called myself a physicist.
That not “theoretically” true. A squared square root cancel each other out, so nothing actually happens. You didn’t square 15 when you square rooted it. If this is your argument, then it is just as viable to say, “the square root of two numbers added together...” which is NOT the question given. In math, there must be consistency and precision. Changing the question to fit a “theory” is not consistent. It is also imprecise to say “all options are correct,” because that means there are infinite correct answers, which makes the question pointless, and therefore, non-theoretical and nonsense.
TheCelestialFox I think what DD tries to state is that "square number" =/= "number's square" Any real number that is not an integer is not included in the first definition (which is the one the show uses).
I find your discussion even more weird as I'm Spanish and not English speaker. But I think I've catched what each of you wanted to explain. It's only a matter of a word's definition. And, in that case, DD was correct.
MINEIRO We'd still be in the stone age if it wasn't for mathematics.
Well, maybe I've exaggerated a bit. We'd be in the Iron Age. Since then, maths were essential for Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.
Maths is the language or code the Universe is written. And it has many applications for social science too (economy as the main one).
I can asure you, as an aerospace engineer student, maths are pretty important for human development. Without maths there would not be physics or any way possible to measure economics data. Without physics there would not be engineering (it wouldn't exist either without math's applications in engineering by itself, like geometry) or any industrial revolution (and of course any digital era), and without money, commerce would be extremely difficult and primitive.
Migue24680 Si "número cuadrado perfecto" es lo mismo que "número cuadrado", quiere decir que no se puede hablar de "número cuadrado" para los cuadrados de números no enteros porque lo estaríamos equiparando a un "número cuadrado perfecto".
Es decir, que la coletilla "perfecto" es redundante en este caso pues no diferencia nada. Y, de hacerlo (es decir, de establecer una diferencia entre número cuadrado perfecto y no perfecto), habría que desechar el término "número cuadrado", a secas. Al menos tal y como viene en su definición de la wikipedia (que debe de ser el cuadrado de un número entero).
@D D bless you for trying, but I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you, nobody is actually 'that' stupid. It's like arguing with a flat earther at some point you just have to walk away.
Never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
The problem is, he was trying way too hard for that to be just 'trolling'. But again, after repeating myself for 20 fucking comments, I can see there is possibility he was trolling. guess we'll never know
12 likes
One For All2018-10-25 22:46:17 (edited 2018-10-25 22:47:09 )
@D D I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AS A FRESH COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ELECTRONICS GRADUATE, LMAO EVEN I KNOW THERE IS NOTHING CALLED A "PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER",
"PERFECT SQUARE" IS THE RIGHT TERM FOR A "SQUARE NUMBER" WHICH ARE JUST INTEGERS THAT ARE MADE UP BY SQUARING OTHER INTEGERS, WHY DO YOU NEED TO TOUCH THE MATHEMATICAL PARTS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE VOCAB PART OF IT SMFH
THAT SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEER WITH HIS ADD NUMBER TO THE END STATEMENT MADE ME LOSE SOME BRAINCELLS
@Cheydinal You found another ...language v/s maths... Was the question specific,is the real discussion. Even though some sentences are clear as per global acceptance but still there is scope left for little ambiguity . And that is what adds fun to life .
@D D You might be right being a major...1)that a perfect square and square number are same n 2) no such word as perfect square number exists . But he was not saying something irrelevant,u shouldn't be so arrogant. I am immature in math but I still know ur points are the globally accepted ones,as kids when asked of square numbers,we used perfect squares quite thoughtlessly but maths is not just believing existing proofs but to question and English is not static ,it evolves as per our convenience . He just wanted the word perfect fit in ,to make things clear as all numbers are squares (but not all are square numbers-agreed). Being a knowledgeable person,you shouldn't belittle others,instead just prove your point calmly .
A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait .
@Memoline M "He just wanted word perfect to fit in" - Since I copy-pasted the definition of number square, which shows that it is equal to perfect square, a word PERFECT is already fitted in.
My whole point in discussion was that people are not able to make up terms on their own, adding or subtracting words whenever they want. Mathematics is all about precision; and it is quite important to use terms properly as they are defined.
Just imagine this for a moment: that people use a term "root number" instead of just "root".
So they will be like "A root number of a number 16 is number 4." Don't you think that sounds kind of idiotic? If you used something like that, academics would laugh at you.
@D D Was the statement on if u added perfect or if the question should have had the word-perfect ...to be more specific leading to only one single interpretation ? Someone said only should be mentioned ,leaving no space for consideration of atmost and atleast . Someone said two *different smaller* should be mentioned as it can be taken as same . Well we all know it's a show after all ,it won't spoon feed ,we have to get the logical meaning ourselves but confusion is not something unexpected .
0 likes
D D2018-10-28 09:48:29 (edited 2018-10-28 09:49:55 )
@Memoline M That comment made by someone else was just plain stupid. Why would it need to say two DIFFERENT square numbers? If there was a square number that is a sum of two smaller, EQUAL square numbers, that would also be the correct answer. No given answers in this question satisfies that. Not 16, not 25, not 36 and not 49.
To be even more precise, there is no such a number in general. It is a known fact in mathematics.
If a, b and c are integers and equation a2 + b2 = c2 is satisfied, then a and b can't be the same parity.
If a and b are not the same parity, it pretty much means they can't be equal; meaning that a2 and b2 are not equal.
Therefore, there isn't a square number that can be a sum of two same square numbers.
4 likes
D D2018-10-28 11:10:20 (edited 2018-10-28 11:10:49 )
@Memoline M "A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait ."
I can see you didn't read even half of this discussion to claim something like that. I tried to explain it to him calmly for 10 straight replies, and he stil didn't get it. Also, he is the one who first said that I didn't pay any attention math class, as well as he first posted about his career.
It wasn't me showing off that I am a big deal dude, I was just showing that the topic regarding this dicsussion is something I know and I've studied, so he could take my replies more seriously. I surely don't have a need to prove my worth on the internet to unknown people.
@D D Yeah,u did fine in the beginning...I read it whole...it was admirable till u used the F word , calling all retards . Discussion is positive till slangs are involved . U seemed respectable ,so such language didn't suit ur knowledge,so I said what I thought .
@Memoline M Yeah, I just took a few lectures on law for my economics college course, so I already kind of got into the mindset of looking for loopholes
@D D 4.84 is also a square number but it is not counted in perfect square because its root has decimal. Were as 81 is a perfect square because its root is a real number.
@D D i salute you honestly if i was in this conversation i would be ripping my hair off by now
10 likes
no more lies2018-11-02 17:00:14 (edited 2018-11-02 17:00:56 )
@D D oh i finally read through everything man you have so much patience and these people who are complaining about language wont be able to handle when this happens to them, i have dealt with someone like that in the past and have never been able to handle it this well i really applaud you my friend.
8 likes
D D2018-11-02 19:23:43 (edited 2018-11-02 19:24:32 )
@Arturo Arellano oh yeah man, this discussion was definitely hilarious.
it was the most fun i've had since i was 7 years old and got my milk teeth to fall out.
@D D if you square a non-integer value you can get a perfect square easely you stupid piece of human society. Just pick your non-integer value carefully.
Mapplesauce not rational brother, integer. Rationals are fractions. (Naturals are whole numbers from 1 up. Integers are the negatives, 0 and the naturals. Rationals are the fractions p/q where p is an integer and q a natural number. Real numbers all the numbers I just mentioned plus the ones you can’t express in a fraction. Complex numbers are the reals plus the i numbers.)
Actually according to the definition presented by MathIsFun, it must be an integer multiplied by itself. Although I understand your reasoning, the square root of 15 and so on are not integers in the first place, so your logic is incorrect. Here is the definition copied exactly:
The result of multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself.
Not sure if anyone pointed this out as of yet, but "Theoretically" here as presented demands an abstraction from the original assumption that one and only one answer is correct. So while your definition holds, technically the question is valid as presented, under the assumption there exist only one correct answer. Ergo, we are to assume the stricter scenario.
@TheCelestialFox he is not arguing the math. He points out that terms like square numbers mean 1 4 9 16 etc. Thats the definition of the word like cubic numbers mean 1 8 27 etc. Any number can be squared or cubed but is not referred to as square numbers as a general rule or general definition of the word
@Vlinder007 I completely forgot this thread existed lol. I left to enjoy my life like I said I would. Nice to see the guy I was talking with originally is still here though, that's funny.
Anyway, the question presented in the video asks for a the sum of two smaller squares, yes (as a sum of anything typically includes numbers smaller than the sum, not including negative values). My whole point, and the OP's point, was that the term square was not defined so theoretically, hypothetically, in the land of possibility that sum could've been made by squaring any number. You can square anything from decimals, to square roots, to whole numbers. However, my thing was that you have perfect squares and then you have squares. A perfect square is a square, but a square is not always a perfect square. You can square PI, which gets you 9.8796..., but is that a perfect square? No, because it's not a whole number being squared to get another whole number, but it's a square. You can square 3 and get 9, which makes it a perfect square on top of being a square. So for the sake of the question, because it was not asked to get the sum using PERFECT squares, but rather just squares which can be completely arbitrary for any of those possible answers any of those answers could be correct. However if they phrased the question saying it had to be done with perfect squares, then yes, 25 is the only answer that works.
@TheCelestialFox by your argument all numbers are square numbers ao why even have a term like square numbers if by your reasoning all numbers are squared so we can just stick to calling it a number why have another term if its useless
@Vlinder007 I disagree with you about squaring anything, but not calling the product a squared number. Again, if you square PI, the result is the squared value of PI, it is a squared number that resulted from squaring PI. If you don't call it a square, what do you call it then?
It's a case of hierarchy to me. All squares are products, but not all products are squares. Likewise all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect. And all perfect squares are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect squares.
@Vlinder007 The whole point of having the term perfect square is to differentiate it from the squares that aren't perfect. You run into squares a lot more in math (at least in my math courses for my degree) than you do perfect squares. That's the argument I'm making. Perfect squares and squares are different things in most cases with some overlap because all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect squares. All of them, perfect or not, are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect or non-perfect squares. You can add the word number after perfect square or square, but you can't attach the name of square after any number. I think you've been misinterpreting my claims.
@Vlinder007 I don't remember D D saying anything like that in his original claims regarding me. His thing was that there's no such thing as a perfect square number or square number because you just call them perfect square or square and that they were the same thing.
I already know that squared number and square number are two different. Respectively they are the term being squared and the term resulting from squaring a term. But he never claimed that when I was talking to him.
@TheCelestialFox not going to argue the same points again the definition of square number means something very specific you as one little individual cannot change that to win your argument if you flatly refuse to accept the proper definition of the term " square number" then ok ignorance is bliss
@Vlinder007 I've already stated the definitions of a squared number, a perfect squared number, a square number, and a perfect square number, have stated that each of them have very obvious differences, explained those differences, and related them back to the overall argument of this thread and the video. You meanwhile have merely claimed that "they mean different things" like a broken record without saying what you perceive those meanings to be (which honestly makes you lose all credibility when trying to take some high road you have no business being on). I have not twisted any definitions throughout my entire time commenting on this thread like you seem to be doing with my words like the ignorant fool you've been this whole time. In the end, despite our views more or less lining up (since you want to be a cryptic, non-contributing but somehow argumentative fool that has only said one thing for now, a claim), I find it best to see myself back out of this toxic conversation rather than continue trying to have a discussion with someone as uneducated in the ways of carrying a conversation with relevant and ELABORATED points as you. Have a good night!
@D D Yea I think this has gone so long that people have gotten the both the original premise and topic of this conversation confused. By scrolling down this far, even i've forgotten what the original comment was but D D is trying to say that within the English language, the term 'perfect square number' does not exist but the term 'perfect square' and 'square number' do. He is not denying any mathematical fact from what I can see. The problem is that insults and childish remarks get thrown around in the comment section until it gets mixed up with the initial topic which leads to confusion because no one can remember what they were talking about.
@D D also I recall you saying that the question was pretty clear and that the answer was definitely B. I would like for you to elaborate on how the original commentor was wrong.
@Vlinder007 Yeah, your "elaboration" is on the wrong thing. If you're not going to say why you think my definition of the terms you mentioned but fail to say anything about, but rather just throw insults like a 5 year old, you only prove my point that you're too immature to hold down a proper discussion and argue beliefs like a mature adult 🤷♀️
@Leighton X That's what I'm trying to argue though. A perfect square is a number. It's not a shape, it's not a color, it's not a person, it's a number. Attaching the word number to the end of it doesn't change the meaning of the term. A perfect square number and a perfect square mean the same thing. Likewise for square and square number. Now if you say squared number (for the sake that it's been brought up in this convo now), while that's also a number it's not the same number as a square one. (Also since it's used as an adjective the word number is more necessary than simply sufficient). What I don't understand is why people who disagree are acting like adding the word number to the terms changes the meaning altogether. It's like saying German Shepherd dog. It's a dog, you can add the word dog to the breed name. It's not conventional to do so, but it can be done without changing the meaning.
Even in Korean words for colors include the word color itself. Red, for example, is "빨간색". "빨간" means red and "색" means color. Literally translated it's "red color", though it just means "red". You can drop the 색 if you choose in a lot of situations, but you can also use it too.
@Chester Thank you for saying what most people should be realizing by now. You pretty much simplified what I've been trying to say throughout my whole time commenting here. Hard to get your point across when everyone would rather throw insults instead of trying to discuss their points maturely like decent humans should. Thank you.
@D D I mean, I only see a few people doing that, and since it's pretty much just people trying to think of the meanest, nastiest things they can call me rather than refute anything I believe with their own beliefs, there's no power or credibility behind it. Also notice how many likes in agreement OP has compared to you? It's because most others understand math and English and know what he meant. You and your people are blinded by rage and hatred because others don't agree with you. Good luck with that mentality in life.
@Vlinder007 Just saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I am anymore than saying I'm right proves I am. You still are saying things without really saying anything other than throwing bm. Why waste your time?
@Vlinder007 Maybe you should stick to trying to type English better before calling people names in German? I've read through your limited posts, since your still new to the convo, and you have only stated that two terms mentioned are different to which I said yes they are and explained how, but you have only said I'm wrong anyway even though we agreed on the same thing essentially (though since you don't know how to expand upon a claim, I can't be too sure if we agree based on the same definitions) and have since resorted to immature name calling.
@Vlinder007 How convenient for you then that esel means ass in German. Since you meant to write something else, that whole comment is pretty much nullified due to all the grammatical errors. Kind of ironic given the purpose of that message lol.
@TheCelestialFox Yeah, because will be bothered to open 121525 replies and scroll to the first reply to see my comment. Once you take a look at replies, nobody likes your comments and everyone insults you.
I am however gonna give it to you. You managed to troll everyone here.
@john smith Actually the root of 23 is 4.7958315233. Even if it was 4.8, 4.8 is a number with a decimal in it. The 0.8 is a decimal. And 4.8 squared is 23.04.
@D D Actually, if you noticed more people liked my comments than they did yours. You have next to no likes after your first comment, but several of mine (before we get too far down) have a lot of likes. And I stopped replying because, like I said, I was enjoying my weekend and life. Why feed the hate on a Saturday?
Also, simply because you don't agree with me about something trivial like the addition of an identifier at the end of a term (because we clearly agree on the meaning of the words) doesn't mean anyone is trolling. You're welcome to try again 😊
the ending word doesn't really matter. that is just another topic in which you are wrong. you claim 15 is a square number. our discussion stops at that pretty much.
@TheCelestialFox I know. I'm saying the question didn't ask for square numbers whose roots are decimals. Which is why the answer to that question is 25.
@john smith No, that's what I and OP are saying. The question just asked for the addition of squared numbers which, due to the 2 numbers being added coming from just a square, could include numbers that are not whole. Numbers that have decimals in them. We both understand the implication was to square an integer and sum it with another squared integer to get one of the possible answers shown, we know that the answer is B, however we're saying HYPOTHETICALLY, because the question didn't specify the numbers had to be perfect squares being summed, that the answer TECHNICALLY, under the hypothetical, could've been any of those answers. And then D D wanted to make a big argument out of a hypothetical...
@D D I never said 15 was a square number. I said root 15 squared makes 15 which can be seen under that pretense as a squared number. I never said 15 was a square number period. You really don't read do you?
Also, you were the one who wanted to make a big deal out of saying perfect square vs saying perfect square number and square vs square number. And by conventional English standards, and other languages whose linguistic rules follow, adding a descriptive word at the end of another word typically does not change the overall meaning.
@TheCelestialFox It literally says square numbers in the question on the video, not squareD numbers. You claim all of the answers are tehnically correct. Therefore, you are a moron.
9 likes
john smith2018-11-07 23:21:15 (edited 2018-11-07 23:26:48 )
@TheCelestialFox I know that is what you are saying, I'm saying what you guys are saying, that your hypothetical interpretation of the question, is a stretch. and even though "technically", yeah, you could do it the way the OP suggested, the guy being questioned wasn't even given a calculator to enable him to find the square root of, say, 23. You can do it without a calculator, i am aware of that, what I'm saying is, unless you're a mathletics top scorer, you're gonna need pen, paper, lots of paper, as finding a square root of a number is an arduous process, without one. And since he wasn't given a calculator, the likeliest interpretation of the question is the one that involves answers that are not decimals.
Maybe if this question was asked today, he could just pull out his smart phone and use the calculator on it, but this was 11 years ago, when Motorolla phones and Nokias were all the rage. And i'd still need lots of paper, even if I had a calculator. And lots of time.
@D D I'm explaining this one more time to your, then I'm going to ignore you because you're simply ignorant at this point and blind and are focusing more on being disrespectful than discussing things. It's no wonder why you constantly misinterpret everything I say. I'm almost convinced you know I'm right, but your ego won't let you concede.
A square number is the product of a non-integer value multiplied with itself. More clearly as the person we both agreed with defined, the product of a rational number which is a non-whole, fractional number, A decimal, being multiplied with itself. Therefore, you can interpret sum of square numbers as the sum of some arbitrary, rational values being squared to reach the other answers. Sum of two square numbers to get 16? You could use root 11 (3.316...) squared plus root 5 (2.236...) squared and you get 16. If you want to be clear that the square numbers must be integers, then the question could've instead said sum of two perfect square numbers. Then the only true answer would be 25. Yet, once again, we know through implication the question meant using the latter and not the former. This whole thing was a hypothetical, a technicality, a possibility, a scenario. And you're here getting pressed about an imaginary situation for weeks? Live your life!
@john smith But you don't need to know what the root of, I'll go with your number, 23 is in order to use it. You know that if you square the root of 23 you're left with 23 and if you squared the root of another number like say 26, you'd end up with 26 and once you add them you get the answer 49. The lady questioning him isn't expecting him to show his math, they didn't provide a calculator or pen and paper, but that's why even in typical fashion in math courses you save time and energy and write square roots that aren't perfect as square roots. Or you write fractions as fractions and not decimals if you can avoid doing so.
Is this a stretch? More than likely. But this was never meant to be a hypothetical that was to be taken so seriously. It was simply food for thought. Not thought provoking or philosophical. Just a small notice in the technicality of using Square number vs. Perfect square number. That's all.
@D D No irony, I've been living my life for weeks after this convo and just came back recently to discuss with more mature, respectful individuals. You're the one who's been spending their days and nights for that time responding to replies from other people over and over. If I was as invested as you, then it would be ironic. And keep calling me a troll like the broken record you are lol 🤦♀️🤷♀️
@TheCelestialFox that's what i thought. no reply to my first comment, but a reply to a second comment that is not relevant to the discussion.
Spending days and nights? Sure dude. Whatever makes your argument stronger. I just love that everyone pissed on you in this comment section and literally nobody agreed with you in comments.
Also, please reply to my first comment, where it is clear that, if you are really serious about this discussion, you are one big moron who is literally denying the official definition of something. Imagine how braindead you need to be to actually do that.
@D D What are you even talking about? A lot of my replies from before I left the first time was spent arguing your first comment. That was the whole argument about the significance of adding the identifier of "number" after the terms prime square and square to make them prime square number and square number. To which the is no change to the meanings of either in doing so. To call a number a number in the title does as much as multiplying a number by 1.
I wrote the definitions of both terms multiple times saying that while the definitions make PSN and SN different from EACH OTHER, which the person we both agreed with not too long ago wrote pretty much the same definitions as me, adding number in the name doesn't change those definitions. That's been my point from day one with you. If you seriously think I haven't been trying to make points about your initial comment, you lose all credibility and validity at this point.
Check the likes for you vs. me for those comments in the beginning. I do have people who agree with me because they understand what I'm saying. The OP who I've been supporting all this time has over 1k likes to.
@kiran v Look, have you ever had a math class where you have the root of a number and you square it to get the number without the root? Maybe you're doing it to both sides of an equation or something? And you can write the non perfect root of a number as a decimal. Easiest with a calculator, but doable. Besides you wouldn't need to know what the decimal is since you're adding the sum of two terms. So since squaring the root of one number is the number and squaring the root of another gets you any of the answers when summed, it doesn't matter what you square as long as you get to the answer. Never said root 15 was a real number btw. I've only been talking about whole numbers, integers, and rational numbers. To which I never said outright root 15 was any. I used it as an arbitrary example.
@Moska Did you mean to say rate or were you trying to say hate?
Sorry if that's how my comments came off, I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck with the presenter, like I said before, this was supposed to be a fun, food for thought kind of thing. But certain people want to feel superior apparently. Can't have a nice discussion online 🤷♀️
yidingcao you’re technically right, but most people when talking about square numbers, they talk about whole numbers, not decimals. So I think it was pretty clear
Look, I’m not a math expert, at all. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they really count square roots of numbers that aren’t whole. (I really am sorry if I’m wrong please don’t start yelling at me)
TheCelestialFox look ! What I’m telling is that root of any number will be non ending non recurring decimal value so by that one should understand that the number is not reaching a definite value .so once we take its square it’s actually an approximate value. So root15 is an approximation of 3.87298346......... etc! Hope I’m clear now
@rlv Yes the question was clear. I was never refuting that the question was ambiguous. I was agreeing with OP that in a hypothetical world, because the question was asked in a way that did not explicitly say perfect squares only, you can use any square to get to any of those answers. That was all.
If you want someone to yell at you, look for D D. He'll also hurl insults free of charge. Like I said, I'm open to discussion in a mature manner.
You mention that they don't expect people to use non-whole numbers. That's precisely my argument. It's implicit that you would use perfect roots, but technically speaking, in a hypothetical way, they just said squares, so any square would be fair game.
@kiran v I already understand that non perfect roots run forever typically. But you can round to the nearest nth term, and still get the rooted term essentially. Root 15 is 3.8729833462 just about, and squaring that gets you 14.9999999999.... which a lot of calculators will show as 15. The more decimal places you add, the more accurate your square number will be. And as discussed before, they will not expect you to know these non perfect roots nor will they provide a calculator, pencil, or paper to do work. They clearly don't care if and how you what terms to use. If you use a square root, they aren't going to be like "no you can't use that unless you know the root in decimal form". Math courses don't even typically do that unless a calculator is involved and you need to graph it. I think you and a lot of people are missing the fact that this is a hypothetical scenario. You're reading this like I'm trying to pertain this to what actually happened. Like I'm trying to say he could've chosen any answer and been right. Not in reality, but in a theoretical one, more than likely.
@TheCelestialFox Your comments have no likes in the latter part of discussion. Are you fucking blind?
You claim OP could be right, even hypothetically. No, he can't. Not even closely right.
You can't just add number to a mathematical term.
Your proposition is to add number to, for example, a square, so you could get square number. What you did is you made something that is already defined in mathematical world and english vocabulary, yet you would claim that square is equal to square number, because yeah, you just added a word "number" to the end of something that has completely other meaning.
A square is a square -> something you have been using instead of square number.
Add number after the square, you get square number that is completely different from just square.
Mathematics is a very precise and strict field of science. Someone who didn't do serious mathematics will never know and understand this.
I’m 13. I actually have to explain this to grown adults. Just to sum it up, square number and perfect square both mean the Same thing. They are the square of an integer, meaning that their square root is a whole number. Any decimal can be squared, however the result will not be a square number. The question clearly states that it is the sum of two square numbers, therefore the original statement is incorrect as square number and perfect square have the same meaning.
@D D You are wrong because of your assumptions that Google search brings up correct definitions of complex subjects - which if you investigated further via the same Google search you would find that some authors indeed do use 'perfect square' distinctively from just 'square' - many things depend on context and agreed concensus so sometines there is not black and white definition as you would like to portray
A square number is the awnser to a Whole Number when that whole number is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number or fraction or any other number other than a whole number.
@Abdalla Ahmed No, As has already been pointed out several times I believe there is no such thing as a perfect square number. There is just a square number or a perfect square. In simple terms a square number (or perfect square) is the awnser to a WHOLE number that is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number. It must be a WHOLE number. In mathematics these things have very precise terms. You can certainly square any number. (multiply any number by itself) but unless that number is a WHOLE number then the product can't be classified as a Square number. Hope this has helped your understanding
Abdalla Ahmed dude, a “square number” is EXACTLY the same as a perfect square, any other number like 15 can technically be a number squared, but don’t fit the definition of Square number
@Martin Jayaraj lol it isn't. I don't think the op realised a square number is the result of n * n. n being an interger. Basic maths don't really know what the fuss is about tbh. People upvote without thinking. Further more you can just look up a list of square numbers and see root 15 isn't there. Since any interger squared will give another integer.
D D dude, I see your frustration and pain. As a maths student, it pains me to see how so many people don't understand what square number means, yet they think they do.
You know you are right, and I (or anyone who is actually able at maths) will know you are right, and others won't. No matter how hard you try to teach them, they won't understand. That's just how selfish people are. So you don't have to try anymore. You worked hard enough my friend. It's so sooo frustrating ik
@TheCelestialFox according to your logic every number is a square number. I thaught you have to think logical as an computer systems engineer?! I was probably wrong in that case lol
@Christian Schroeder Shows what you know about any form of mathematics that deals with multiples lol. And English for that matter. How many times must a person include the words HYPOTHETICAL and THEORETICAL, sometimes in caps, for you to understand that OP and I are talking about a possibility? Technically speaking yes, every number is a square of some other number, whether it be whole or not. HOWEVER, not every square number is a PERFECT square number. You can find the square root of practically any number you can think of big or small, whole, fractional, or decimal. As I have stated multiple times (I suppose you have no reading comprehension to see that) every perfect square number is a square number, but not every square number is a perfect square number. It's like saying all golden retrievers are dogs, but not all dogs are golden retrievers (to dumb ot down for you, you're welcome). 16 is a perfect square number of 4. It's a square number and a perfect square number. An arbitrary value like 1.597 is a square number of 1.2637246536. It's not perfect, but it's a square number nonetheless. You can square any number and get another number that is its square number. Having had to do an abundance of math courses, one of which being discrete math, with a lot of proofing, this is basic knowledge. Even the square of 0 is 0. It's not hard to comprehend.
@TheCelestialFox 1,597 is the square of 1,2637246536, its is not called the square number of 1,2637246536, that is the problem. I know what you mean but this question (which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?) is clearly defined. The term or the concept (i dont know the right word because english is not my mother languege) "square number" is also clearly defined. You are right when you say technically every number is the square of some other number. But not all of them are a square number, that is the point.
This entire argument is stupid. Who cares if a square number means the product of an integer being multiplied by itself? It doesnt matter that the word is used incorrectly, because everybody understands the meaning. Nitpicking the fact that the word was used correctly is pointless, especially considering this is the damn YouTube comments section, not a university class, not a professional setting at all.
@Christian Schroeder Okay, wow, now you've taken this argument nearly back to the top about semantics concerning the addition of a descriptive word such as number.
Again, a square number and a square are the same thing. They are products (numbers) of a number that is multiplied with itself. Likewise a perfect square and a perfect square number are the same thing. They are products of a whole, rational number multiplied with itself. To say that "a is the square of b, but a is not the square number of b" is completely contradictory. That's like saying "16 is the perfect square of 4, but it's not the perfect square number of 4". You roll never get another value outside of 16 when squaring 4. The value you get when you square 1.2637246536 is only 1.597. You will not get another value. 1.597 is the square number to 1.2637246536. It's what you get when you square it and it is a number. When you square any number, you get a number in the output. It's the square number you get from the squared number. Square and square number are synonymous. Saying number at the end does not change the definition. It's like saying tabby and tabby cat. They are the same thing, a cat. To say cat at the end doesn't change that.
Finally, as I have also stated countless times in my time in this thread as well, the question is understood by everyone. We all get the context and know that B is the only correct solution. What OP and I are saying is that IN A HYPOTHETICAL, PROBABLE, THEORETICAL, MADE UP, ALTERNATE REALITY, because the question was presented in a way that did not EXPLICITLY state "using perfect squares", and because any number on this God forsaken planet can be squared, you can THEORETICALLY, HYPOTHETICALLY, PROBABLY reach any one of those 4 answers. Why is that so hard for people to read? It's like people are cherry picking words and phrases and are acting like I'm talking about this reality. 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦♂️🤦♀️
@TheCelestialFox there are no perfect square numbers. Square numbers and perfect squares are the same thing. 2,25 is the square of 1,5 but its not a square number! 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers. Please check the definition of square numbers and you will see that the question is 100% explicit.
@Christian Schroeder Please check the definition of a perfect square. You will find that it is the product of rational number, an integer, multiplied with itself. This means whole numbers larger than 0, ie. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., n where n is a rational value. Yes 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers, but they are also perfect square numbers. You multiplied whole, rational, integers to get those values. You didn't square 2.9836 or 3.2856 to get 9, you squared 3. Perfect squares exist and are square numbers. I've said this countless times if you bothered to read: Every perfect square number is a square number, but not every square number is a perfect square number. Please see my example regarding 1.597. Also, please read the full thread and use Google. These terms have been defined by multiple people and official math websites such as wolfram and even Google.
Also, for the millionth time but you want to cherry pick, I never said the question wasn't clear. It was, we all know what it's asking for and know factually that the answer is B. This was a HYPOTHETICAL, THEORETICAL, PROBABLE SCENARIO. I won't explain it again, do yourself a service and read.
i feel like you’re missing the point of what a square number is. A square number is the same as a perfect square. You are confusing square number with squared number (aka number that is squared, or number to the power of 2). A square number is a number with a whole number root, while a squared number is any number that has been squared.
@gilito345 Are you slow, or do you just not like to read? All you have to do is Google "perfect square vs square" and you get the same results that I and other people here have already explained.
A perfect square is a square, but a square is not always perfect. A square is only perfect when the product you get comes from an integer being squared. For example 100 is a perfect square of 10, 49 is a perfect square of 7. They are squares and they are perfect squares. However you can't say 17 or 23 are perfect squares. They are squares of some irrational value, but not of an integer. The difference between a square and perfect square is the fact that a perfect square is the product of squaring a whole, rational, integer whereas a square is the product of integers and the product of irrational numbers being squared. They are not one in the same, they are not always mutually inclusive, that's why we have separate names for them, I don't know how much clearer I can be on this matter after having explained it so many times.
I have also already explained that a square number is the product of squaring a number whereas the squared number is the number you're multiplying with itself to get the product. If you're not going to read the things I've already stated in this to understand fully what I've said, your opinion on my views is pretty invalidated.
TheCelestialFox you changed the subject I never said anything about squares I was talking about square numbers square numbers by definition are the same as perfect squares. I agree not all squares are perfect as you said but squares are different than square numbers
@gilito345 I have been on topic this whole time. You're kind of making things up it seems. It's been discussed countless times what a square number is vs a square (they are the same thing, putting number at the end doesn't change a thing, it's a descriptive word like saying pitbull dog vs pitbull). Likewise a perfect square number means the same thing as a perfect square. We've already covered a perfect square vs a square, and a square number vs a squared number. Please, go back to the very beginning and just read everything I've said, you're making me repeat myself more than I'd like to. Square numbers are not the exact same thing as perfect square numbers. Perfect square numbers are within the scope of square numbers, but square numbers also includes non-perfect squares. How many times are you going to make me say this? Just Google "perfect square vs square".
TheCelestialFox whatever dude idc that much I’ve found evidence on google both for your argument and against it, I can see both sides of the argument I just wanted to talk about what I thought based on how I was taught, you don’t have to be a prick about it
@ D D.. U shud have some etiquettes on how to deal with people, the way u use such abusive language shows how much educated u r!! Go back and learn some etiquettes first and then come back for discussing on maths
Wissale Ch.. Do you call it patience? Really!!! He is using such abusive language n he is such a short tempered guy who is not interested in discussion but in just proving jis point right, I think u need to Google the definition of patience
@ D D.. How does it feel when the whole comment section and the comment readers think that you are a jobless, brainless person .. Who has thissss much of free time to argue with people n prove his point right, u r the most dumb person I have ever seen
D D.. Actually everyone dislikes you n yours nonsense comments! N everyone is insulting you, not Celestial fox, please.. For the sake of god, please shut up now.. U r too much arrogant n boring
TheCelestialFox hey buddy I think you are intelligent enough to leave this argument now... Let this D D be arrogant and fool, his biggest insult is in not replying to him n let him throw his comments alone
— But, I think that Producers can easily make the argument that...
(1) SINCE every single one of “[the] square numbers” provided as multiple choice answers are “perfect squares...”
(2) it intuitively follows that the two “square numbers” - which add together to make the “square number” in your answer - are also “perfect squares” as well.
More practically, they probably weren’t super precise with the wording of the question because they didn’t want to lower the font size or make the text box bigger. The risk was betting on whether or not a contestant, who knows there’s only 1 answer, would counterintuitively interpret the question in a way that yields 4.
Jussayin’.
(Also: sorry, D D - Postmodernism is soooo easy to fall into. Lol.)
Zaki Qasim My view on this is that: if a number IS (or “happens to be ”) the sum of two numbers, then it means that exactly two numbers add together to make that number.
This is mainly because your argument seems to assume that the question signifies that the number is at least the sum of two numbers.
But, without “at least” written in the question, an implied “only” seems to make perfect intuitive sense: I mean, when a doctor says that “their patient IS (or “happens to be “) 5 feet tall,” it makes sense to think that they’re only 5 feet tall... not that they’re at least 5 feet tall.
But, of course, in both situations, you could ask the inquirer. The doctor will easily say “only x feet tall” and the host will easily say “only x numbers” - especially since there IS 1 answer to the question.
— Not at least 1 answer, mind you; but, only 1 answer.
Now, please, check out the definition of SQUARE NUMBER, and not Perfect Square. You'll find that, at least in my country, a SQUARE NUMBER is a number multiplied by itself, but a Perfect Square (number) is, actually, an INTEGER multiplied by itself. But they are not the same things. If I'm wrong, as I could be, please don't send me definitions, which I've already found, but explain with civil words what's the problem with what I've found AND why. Thanks.
true, but if you look it this way every number is a number square and at the same time a sum of two smaller number squares, so the question makes no sence.
@D D Google literally says for perfect square: square of a rational number. Someone does not know math.
0 likes
Ian Yoo2018-12-09 06:49:25 (edited 2018-12-09 08:20:14 )
HOLY. SH*T.
Guys. This is not hard. The man just said that all the answers are technically correct. There is no need for 300+ comments on perfect squares and square numbers.
All you need to know is: A square number is a perfect square. Any number can be squared. Not all numbers are square numbers.
ie: I can square 3.14159265358979323846264338 and get a result, but it’s not a “square number”
It’s like how a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.
The Real Snowy Thanks, you’re right. A square number = perfect square. It was poor research on my part. I’ve edited the answer.
In that regard, I still don’t understand what the whole argument was on. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the definition??
Because by definition, every number is a square. Every number is some other number multiplied by itself. But a square number in particular has integer roots, or an “exact” root. So... what’s the dilemma?
The Real Snowy Okay, since you clearly didn't bother to read my comments in order to see how I have explained how a square number and a perfect square number are different (hence why they even have two differentiating names), I'll explain it one more time step by step:
Perfect Square Number: A number that results from multiplying an integer (integer being defined as a whole, rational number), with itself. Examples of this include 1 * 1 = 1, 2 * 2 = 4, 15 * 15 = 225, etc.
Square Number: encompasses a perfect square number, but also includes any other number resulting from multiplying an irrational, fractional, or otherwise decimal number with itself. This includes the aforementioned examples, but also things such as (22/13) * (22/13) = 2.8639, sqrt(27) *sqrt(27) = 27, 1.25 *1.25 = 1.5625, etc.
The difference between a square number and a perfect square number is essentially that a perfect square number can only have squared numbers (squared numbers defined as the numbers being multiplied) that are whole numbers ONLY. Square numbers however can have squared numbers that can be anything from 0 to infinity. A perfect square number is a specific type of square number.
If you want to call a perfect square number a square number, go ahead, because a perfect square number is a square number. However a square number is not a perfect square number. I've given the example with animal breeds. A tabby cat is a cat, but not all cats are tabbies. It's a one way street. You can call a perfect square number a square number (it's in the name even), but you can't call a square number a perfect square number because not every square number is perfect (ie not every square number is the product of an integer being multiplied with itself). They are not synonymous, they are not mutually inclusive. It's like inheritance in programming. Computer would be the parent class, and Asus would be the child class because it is a type of computer. It inherits things that a computer can do, but the computer doesn't inherit Asus functionality. It's one way only.
I hope this finally clears up the confusion. Also, I have a lot of people liking my comments and agreeing because they understand perfectly what it is I'm saying. According to what I've read in the thread a lot of people are bashing D D for his claims (not that I condone the bashing).
Not really. Here's a definition of a square number from wikipedia: "In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."
The Real Snowy Okay, so if you read every one of my comments as you claim, first of all thank you for taking the time in this mess of a thread, you don't understand what it is I'm trying to say at all. In the dog breed example, the border collie would be the perfect square, not the square. Because the border collie is a certain type of dog. Likewise, a perfect square is a certain type of square.
If you square 4, 4 * 4, you get 16. 16 is the square number of the squared number 4. It is also the perfect square number to the squared number 4. However if you square 1.25, 1.25 * 1.25, you get 1.5625. This is a square number. The square number 1.5625 is the square number to the squared number 1.25. But you wouldn't call it a perfect square number. Why? Because the squared number is not an integer. The squared number 1.25 is not a whole number.
That's the distinction I'm trying to make. You can call a perfect square number simply a square number, it is. You can call a border collie dog a dog, it is. You can't call every square number perfect, because they are not all perfect. You can't call every dog a border collie dog, because they are not all border collie dogs.
You seem to also have misunderstood my query as well. Someone was telling me that is wrong to assume that every number is a square number. So I was saying that if you squared a number to get to whatever number you were thinking of, would that not constitute it being a square number? I'll type a number completely at random: 375.3847492 This is a square number. If I go into a calculator and use the square root function I will get a result. What do I get? I get 19.3748483659. This is clearly not a perfect square. Neither the square nor squared numbers are integer values. However, you can still call this a square. 375.3847492is still a square number from the squared number 19.3748483659. My query was if you don't call it a square, what would you call it? Because if, according to you, a square and a perfect square are one and the same, this wouldn't count as being a square because it would have to be whole numbers only.
"Every number is a square, but it is only a 'perfect square' if its square root is an integer. For example the root of 2 is not a perfect square it is an irrational number 1.4142... but the square root of 4 is 2 hence perfect square."
That's what you get when you look up "perfect square vs square".
The Real Snowy Okay, and now I'm telling you, YOU'RE wrong. What you just said is the definition of a perfect square number. A perfect square number is when the result is an integer from another integer being multiplied with itself. 2 * 2 = 4. That's a square number yes, but more specifically it's also a perfect square. 1.25 * 1.25 = 1.5625. That's a square number yes, but more specifically it is NOT a perfect square number because neither the square nor the squared numbers are integers. That's the difference between the perfect square number and the square number. Perfect squares are EXCLUSIVELY integers from integers. A square number is any number from another number, INCLUDING integers, but more specifically and importantly from irrational, fractional, and decimal numbers (since of course there are more of those kinds of numbers than integers so you'll deal with those a lot more in real world situations). So I raise the question to you. Since you're not calling 1.5625 a square number (even though we know the square root is 1.25, we know 1.25 is the number you square to get 1.5625) what do you call it then? What are you doing to 1.25 to get to 1.5625 if you're not squaring it apparently? Squaring a number is defined as multiplying the number with itself to get a square number which is defined as the product of the aforementioned multiplication.
The Real Snowy I have already said they are not synonymous. I don't know how to make this any more simplistic to understand than I already have. All I can tell you is that square number encompasses a perfect square number, but is not itself a perfect square number. A perfect square number by definition is a square number, but it is a SPECIAL TYPE of square number limited to only integer values.
The Real Snowy And since you misinterpret it, I have to stay on dog breeds. "The point I was trying to make is that NEITHER of them are parent classes or sub classes as they both mean the same thing." By that statement are you trying to say that border collie and dog are synonymous terms. I can look at a husky and go "look at that border collie over there!" or tell the owner "You have a nice border collie here!" and they would thank me without telling me "This is actually a husky... 😳"? No! The point of the analogy was to say that dog breeds are a specific kind of dog. You can call each breed a dog, but you can't call just any canine by any breed name.
Let's say you have a bike. It's a mountain bike. That distinction makes it certain type of bike. You see someone else with a beach cruiser bike. Another type of bike. You wouldn't call their bike a mountain bike or your own bike a beach cruiser. You can call them both simply bikes though. You wouldn't go into a bike shop, ask for a mountain bike, and expect to get a beach cruiser. Likewise, a perfect square number is a type of square number. You can call it a square number, but you can't call every square number perfect.
The Real Snowy As any educator would do, I discredit your use of arbitrary website definitions, not only because you sourced Wikipedia of all places, but because anyone can include only data that supports their argument rather than data that has supporting claims and has disproving claims. In layman's terms, you're biased, and using sources that can be manipulated or are otherwise untrustworthy. Sorry about it 🤷♀️ Also, it's not like you bothered to read and answer my question I raised to you, so I'd say we're even.
The Real Snowy I'm going to leave now, I more than likely won't respond anymore. This argument was pointless a month ago and you're like the 3rd or 4th person I've tried to explain this simple concept of hierarchy in mathematics to. I have better things to do with my Sunday. I'm moving in with my boyfriend this month, I'm studying for a coding assessment and technical interview for a job with Amazon, I've wasted enough time and energy responding to different people about the same things over and over.
This is not me conceding, this is not me running away, this is me doing what I did the first time: living my life. Have a weekend sir!
The Real Snowy I said the same thing about you, which is why I'm removing myself from this convo. Funny, we agree on something finally. But as someone who has 2 offers from General Dynamics and an offer from Amazon, I truly think my time can be spent on better things than trying to educate someone so simple. Again, have a nice day, don't @ me again.
@D D Shows what you know about either company. As if they're going to give or deny a job in software development over something as simple as this (which they would undoubtedly agree with me on as apparently only people who take math classes higher than trig understand this basic concept). Its software development, as in coding. My coding logic and design is all that matters. Try again though please, great talking with you 😂👍
0 likes
D D2018-12-10 16:05:22 (edited 2018-12-10 16:05:59 )
@TheCelestialFox Wow, you just understood my comment seriously. That just shows that you haven't changed this past month - you are still a moron.
Edit: even more people pissing on you since my last comment. It really is so sad.
@D D Lol the fact that you think just because I responded to you makes me take you seriously is hilarious 😂 I haven't taken you seriously since I first stopped responding to you. Also, I've seen a lot more responses coming at you than at me, but believe what you want 🤷♀️
You're expecting a complete revamp of a person's character in less than 30 days? That's what's sad here lol. Not as sad as the way you address people behind a screen in a discussion, but nearly as low. Have a great week! 😉😜
The Real Snowy Well, guess what. I tried the nice way for the first five comments, but didn't really have the patience afterwards.
After all, we shouldn't get mad about one person not understanding something (even though it still annoys me because this is not a complicated topic).
After all, this is a youtube section, not a rational, live discussion. People tend to not read everything you write, and just stick with their own.
For example, I asked him several times to respond to some of my comments precisely, and he avoided that (pretty sure he did it on purpose, but then again, there is a possibility he just didn't read those). But wcyd, if I explained the same thing 20 times already, and if 20 other people explained the very same thing, and if there isn't literally anyone backing up his claim, then he should really understand in the end that he is just wrong.
Also, him being a troll is still not an excluded option.
wow yall argued this concept for over a month and consistently. I gave up reading after halfway and just started scrolling to the end laughing. BTW D D is right what the other guy is arguing is essentially the fragmented math that your teacher teaches in middle school so you dont go delving in too deep and getting confused. A square number and a number that can be squared are completely different things. Lol keep arguing made my day just seeing this persistence.
@Joey wheeler Wow, I feel bad sorry for you. I'm not even going to bother explaining these concepts again. You somehow have never heard of a perfect square but pretty much everyone else here has, even if we all are understanding it differently. All I have to say is you're wrong and leave it at that.
No one @ me anymore. After this comment by Jose, I have lost all hope that you people will ever understand this concept. You'd doubt a discrete math professor even if they showed you the proofing for it. Peace!
I like ".... and the list goes on" part. The list doesn't stop. So every every real number is a square number. And every square no is a real no. I can't wait to shout it to the world.
@TheCelestialFox Ofc everything can be squared. But that does not make every number a square number. A square number is the result of n*n where n is a integer. √26 is not an integer, so 26 is not a square number. I don´t know why you all refuse to believe D D. It is a fucking definition. The question was perfectly fine. Even 5 graders should know the answer.
Holy crap. I have a test tomorrow and i just wanna be happy by watching this vid from 11 years ago. Then I saw this fucking chain and my brain got destroyed. Looks like i won't be passing the exam. Thanks guys.
@bowlchamps37 1) If you knew how to read, you'd know I said don't @ me, which means don't respond to me anymore I'm completely done with you people.
2) What you have defined is a perfect square which, again, is a certain type of square. Also, if you say you can square anything and everything, you can't deny that everything is a square of something else. Will it always be perfect? No! Again, certain numbers will be perfect squares on top of being squares, most other numbers will be squares only, not perfect.
3)I have stated multiple times that I never said the question was ambiguous to where it can't be understood. I said everyone already knows that the question IMPLIED the use of a perfect square. That's how we get to the one definitive answer of B. However, what was presented by OP was, again please use reading comprehension to understand this, a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. This means that in a pretend world, what if they needed to be more explicit and say perfect square to use integers, but still said square to you could use any arbitrary value? In that situation any answer is fair game.
If you want to ignorantly sit there and believe that square and perfect square are completely proportional even though a perfect square is a square all the time, but a square is NOT a perfect square all the time, that's no longer my business. DO NOT @ ME AGAIN PLEASE! Thank you!
D D i wish my englich would be much better or you could speak german 😂 The problem is so simple but i try to say. You have studied math which means your main topic was to use difinitions to prove something . By the way that is the right way 😂 The other guy is some IT guy who isnt bad at math but never learnd the right way to prove something . So each of you is right by his own understanding but you are right by terms of the way to do math. He is right that every number is the the square of two other numbers but it seems he doesnt know that „square number“ used as a mathematical therm with definition isnt the same as „square number“ used as an common word . He isnt dumb or something but he hasnt had the same mathematical edjucation as we had . Btw i studied physics which means i had to take the basic math classes which were brain fuck enough😂 but i know there is a huge difference between math as math and math to use in physics/IT/ electronics ect
TheCelestialFox A random comment in Japanese from a history teacher and musician from Brazil: 君チンコが好きですね. I have read all 360 and so comments and even though my English is nearly perfect, my Math is only above average. Have a good day, and never forget this thread!
@TheCelestialFox the term "perfect square number" dosen't exist in English. There are square number and perfect square that are synonimous, after there are only squares. 5 is the square of √5 and not the square number of √5. The problem in this topic is not the matematics, but the English. Please, stop thinking, i know you know how to do a square, the problem is that you are passing for right a wrong term. I'm Italian and in Italy exist only the term "quadrato perfetto" that is like to "perfect square" the term "quadrato perfetto numero" dosn't have sense, and is the corrispettive of "perfect square number" in italian 5 is the "quadrato" of √5 and not the "numero quadrato" of √5 because the term "square "("quadrato" in italian) it means itself a number and dosen't need the term number after itself. So the problem is not the math, but the language.
@Mence Apparently @ doesn't exist either. 🙄 Maybe you should stick to the Italian language which, by the way, you can't make comparisons on how Italians use their native tongue to how Americans use American English. You people (I don't mean Italians, I mean commenters) consistently make me repeat myself. Adding number after any of these terms perfect square or square does NOT change the meaning of the words anymore than saying tabby cat doesn't change the fact that a tabby is a cat. Yes, 5 is the square when you square the root of 5, but since root 5 is not an integer or whole number, it's not a perfect square. I'm only going to say this one more time: A perfect square number is a certain type of square number, don't @ me again, and maybe you should stop thinking in English and stick to Italian. Thank you, goodbye.
The Real Snowy according to celestialfox I came up with point which I agree and y'all dont understand is EVERY NUMBER HAS A SQUARE (it could be any from 0-- +infinity)BUT EVERY SQUARE ISNT PERFECT. like square of any decimal is a square but isnt perfect square. Perfect squares are of whole numbers
@TheCelestialFox oh my god . chill you are right just calm down ,relax and enjoy your life . have a great coming weekend and STOP REPLYING ! THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER.
@Muhammad Junaid It very well would be over if people would stop @ing me like you just did. Calm down? Who said I was mad or upset? I admit to being a little annoyed that I keep trying to exit the convo only to have someone new @ me like you just did. You're the one who seems upset right now and needs to calm down. I keep trying to leave and live my life like the first time, and if people stop clogging my notifs with this long dead discussion, I could. Thank you for understand how squares and perfect squares work though. Everyone stop @ing me please! Have a good holiday, even you D D
There’s no such thing as perfect square numbers. There’s perfect square or square numbers, which are numbers that can literally form a square taking every single unit as a point. These numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...
Alright so you guys can get your heads out of your ass I’m going to list off a bunch of perfect squares and squares spot the difference Perfect Squares:1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100 Squares:2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15 etc A perfect square is the square of a whole number, under certain circumstances a square can be a perfect if the the number being squared is a whole number. If the number is not a whole number it is simply a square.
yidingcao sorry if this has already been stated, I only read the first ~30 comments before it turned too cancerous.
Technically, the question is ambiguous because he didn’t specify which type of number he is looking for.
If instead the question read “which of these square integers happens to be the sum of two smaller square integers”, the only possible answer is B.
The question could of also read “which natural number happens to be the sum of two smaller natural numbers”, the ambiguity would be lost.
Better yet, if the question just said which of these perfect squares also happens to be.....bla, the ambiguity would once again be lost. But since that was not the case, one could consider the set of real and/or complex numbers for all answers to be correct.
My guess is they used that type of language because most people wouldn’t think that deeply about it and would just assume the use of natural numbers or integers.
TheCelestialFox - You are simply wrong. Your main argument boils down to be that the phrase "square number" cannot mean something different from using the word "square" as a modifier for the word "number". But this is incorrect.
The German Shepherd example is a perfect example. Individually, the word "German" can refer to a citizen of Germany, and the word "Shepherd" can refer to someone who takes care of sheep. If we put these two meanings together, "German Shepherd" refers to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep. But the phrase "German Shepherd" need not refer to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep; it most frequently refers to a breed of dog.
And that's the issue that you keep having. You keep arguing that the phrase "square number" cannot possibly have its own meaning as a phrase apart from combining the definitions of "square" and "number" individually. As with the "German Shepherd" example, this is simply wrong. The phrase "square number" refers to the "square of an integer." People have provided you with plenty of references of this. You kept ignoring these references and then stating your own opinion about what the phrase means. You're essentially arguing with the dictionary about the meaning of a word.
There's not much more to say. You are denying basic facts about mathematical terminology.
Nope, 15 will never be a square number until it is defined as one, and that's never gonna happen. Square numbers are 1,4,9,16,25,... Some might include 0, but that doesn't help you either.
@TheCelestialFox you are just causing confusion by saying a square (in the context of numbers) is different to a square number. When you say 17 is a square, it's ridiculous cause we take square as meaning square number. I know 17 is the square of sqrt17, but it's really unpractical to go round saying 17 is a square.
@TheCelestialFox you have the terms: Square Square number Perfect square Perfect square number You're happy to omit "number" from perfect square number, but then you aren't happy to omit "number" from square number. It's simple really, just take those 4 terms to mean square numbers, so 17 is not a square, no confusion now.
@Colin Java 1) You clear as day don't understand the differences between a perfect square and perfect square number vs. a square and square number. All of which I gave definitions for that you didn't see, forgot about, or chose to cherry pick and ignore. I'm not repeating it. Play Where's Waldo and find it since you're this invested.
2) Your claim that 15 is not a square number is absolutely false. It is 100% a square number of the decimal form of its root (√15 or 3.8729833462). Because this root is not a whole, rational number, it's NOT a PERFECT root which means 15 is not a PERFECT square. The other numbers you listed: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are all squares AND perfect squares because their roots are whole, rational numbers. Every number has a square value. If you type in a calculator ANY arbitrary value and square it or square root it, you WILL receive a numeric value. This is why EVERY number is a square. HOWEVER, the only numbers that are considered a PERFECT square are the ones that result from a whole, rational number (meaning no fractions/decimals) being multiplied with itself. That's the distinction, use, and purpose of saying PERFECT square vs simply saying SQUARE. To add the term "number" at the end to make these terms perfect square NUMBER and square NUMBER is only a redundancy because of course these values are numbers. It's like asking on a math test "Is this irrational?" vs. "Is this an irrational number?"
3) Leave this god forsaken comment thread the hell alone. This whole thing is well over a year old. You're only trying to start an old fight anew and no once needs the headache. Drop it.
@TheCelestialFox The issue is that you're giving your personal definition of the phrase "square number" and ignoring the well-established definition of "square number" that Euclid gave (Elements book VII, definition 18) and has been consistently used by mathematicians for the past 2000 years (there is no reason to expand the phrase's meaning to a more general concept of "number").
On a quiz show, terminology has meaning. You can't just make up your own meaning to the terminology, otherwise you could make the case that every answer is right to every question (just make up your own meaning for what the question means!).
@MuffinsAPlenty Exactly, his definition makes no sense cause every number is a square number if 15 is a square number. You can say 15 is the square OF A number (sqrt 15), but its not a square number.
Colin Java - Yeah, and the same thing goes for a lot of terminology that Euclid defined: multiple, even number, odd number, prime number, composite number, square number, and perfect number. If we tried to expand their definitions to the set of all real or complex numbers, these would all be meaningless terminology, since in most cases, every number would satisfy the definition or no number would satisfy the definition.
No number would be a prime number since every number would be divisible by every (nonzero) number. 3 would be an "even number" since 3 can be divided by 2. Maybe TheCelestialFox would say that 3 is an even number, but not a perfect even number.
This sort of thing happens all the time in mathematics: there are adjectives that can be defined algebraically in very abstract settings. For example, you can define the notion of "prime" element in any commutative semi-ring. You can define the notion of "algebraic element" in any field extension. You can define the notion of "square" in any semi-ring. But when we tack on the word "number", we often restrict it to the original context in which it was defined, which is often the broadest meaningful context when dealing with the common number sets. "Prime number" is a prime element in the commutative semi-ring of natural numbers, and it would lose all meaning when extended to the rational numbers or higher. "Algebraic number" is an algebraic element in field extension of the complex numbers over the rational numbers, and would lose all meaning if the base field were extended. And "square number" is a square element of the ring of integers, and it would lose all meaning if we extended it to the real numbers or complex numbers.
@D D LOL mans wants a metal for what? Subjecting yourself to this? U literally got into a semantics argument on the internet and expected to come out with a win. News flash, this is the internet. If you engage in an argument, that’s on you. Throw insults all you want, at the end of the day no ones gunna win.
@UCUwOV6Lq9RZiCrF1rFI21qw you are an idiot. First sentence of Wikipedia: “@ - “In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.”
@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA: In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA: In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA: In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
@ArkenLegend Thanks for reminding me about this comment section lmao.
I won't say you are wrong though. I've googled perfect square and the definition usually uses "integers multiplied by itself" which would mean 0 is a perfect square as well, but when I google the list of perfect squares, 0 is usually excluded.
I was so interested that I've sent an e-mail to one of my professors at uni who is actually one of the leading experts in number theory field.
Basically, the conclusion is that this question should've had "positive square numbers" in it's wording, so there wouldn't technically be any other answers.
1 like
D D2021-11-20 22:29:35 (edited 2021-11-20 22:31:18 )
@ArkenLegend Actually, now that I think about it, you are not correct. I knew it 3 years ago that the question was precisely asked and that multiple answers weren't possible, but I forgot about it for a moment.
So the question states that we are looking for a square number that is a sum of two SMALLER square numbers. That's why you cannot have 0 + 16 = 16, since 16 is not smaller than 16.
@D D Lol dude you were right this whole time and still people were arguing with you. I used to think I am bad at math but when I saw the comments arguing on your correct defination of a "square number" I realised that I am smarter than so many people. I remember a question asked during my 6th grade or so, "How many square numbers are there between 1 and 100". The correct answer to this question was 9 but according to the people arguing with you there are 99 square numbers between 1 and 100. Btw why were you even arguing with such dumb heads 3 years ago. Someone has said it right "It's hard to win an argument against a genius, but it's impossible to win an argument against an idiot."
@Aditya Singh I am not arguing with people from 3y ago, I just answered to one guy who commented few days ago. I actually didn't get any notifications for two full years until now and completely forgot about this discussion. Fun times. Thanks for agreeing with me though, you are the man.
@D D No no I didn't meant you are arguing with people from 3 years ago. I meant you were arguing 3 years ago with TheCelestialFox and some others who won't even try to understand what you were saying. It was not worth it to argue with such people.
@TheCelestialFox you are the one who doesn't understand basic math. Heres a list of what you got wrong.
Whole numbers and integers are not the same thing. Whole numbers go from 0 to infinity while integers go from negative infinity to infinity.
Squaring a non-integer does not always give another non-integer. The square root of 2 is a non-integer, specifically, an irrational number. Squaring it gives you an integer, more specifically, 2.
Lastly, by your definition of "square number," all real numbers numbers are square numbers. This absoloutely defeats the point of calling it a square number in the first place. You would literally be able to call pi a square number. I see the logic in calling a number that is squared a square number, but you do not make the definitions, and the definitions plural collectively say a square number is the square of an integer.
The question meant to say squared numbers. Numbers which are squared are basically squared numbers. It can be anything. You can square integers to get a square number. Square any irrational or rational even complex. Since the question just specifies the word "numbers" it can be any number in the realm of computable numbers. If the question was like that, "Which of these squared integers also happen to be the square of two smaller integers?", then only one answer. Option B.
@D D Hi there, you still active? Well actually all options in the question was true because 0 is also a square number and we can write smth like this: 16=16+0=4^2+0^2 25=25+0=5^2+0^2 36=36+0=6^2+0^2 49=49+0=7^2+0^2
@D D this is hilarious, all these comments pissed me off so much when reading them. the funniest thing to me was that people who clearly have no fucking idea what they're talking about equated rational numbers and integers, even TheCelestialFox who claimed to have a CompSci degree. thank you for pushing back on them lol. Also, someone probably already said this but all the answers are correct: they're all the squares of integers and so is 0. 0^2 + 4^2 = 16^2. you could use a slightly different definition and say a square number n is an integer for which there exists a square with n as its area and another integer, sqrt(n), as its side length. then since a shape with side length 0 has no vertices and no angles, a square with side length 0 does not exist and 0 is not a square number.
@TigerGold 59 All of the answers can't be correct. In your example, you have 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2 and it's not correct because the question states that the number needs to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. your answer is not correct because 4^2 is not smaller than 4^2.
@D D Respect, dude. I wouldn't have lasted so long without calling him a retard. I once engaged in a similar conversation about the cardinality of the set of real numbers. Never again.
No need to involve irrational numbers. 16 = 5.76 + 10.24, and 5.76 = 2.4^2 and 10.24 = 3.2^2. It will work with the other numbers too, all I did to get 2.4 and 3.2 was multiply 3 and 4 by 4/5. You can get 2 non-integer but rational numbers that add to 36 and 49 by using 6/5 and 7/5 in the same way. So for instance 18/5 is 3.6 and 24/5 is 4.8, so 12.96 and 23.04 are 2 square numbers that add to 36. And that would follow the actual definition of a square number, as the square roots are rational.
@D D I don't believe after 3 years, youtube recommends this video to me. I have seen this entire comment section and yea, I know people can be that ignorant and stupid, and I have a good laugh about it. The summary is: TheCelestialFox use HIS OWN DEFINITION of square number to argue, while this term actually already has a clear and precise definition in mathematics that differ entirely with his assumed to be true definition lol. D D has already tried multiple times to give this guy a refference regarding the correct mathermatical definition, but TheCelestialFox (being a troll) doesn't even read that refference and still arguing that his own definition of square number should be the correct one xD
jfc this is long, I literally just scrolled down to the bottom to save myself from reading all that lmao. I'm pretty sure they teach square numbers in like year 6 or something lmao
@rohitchaoji Because in maths, there is no such thing called "perfect square number". It´s either perfect square or perfect number. And OP is still incorrect since a square number is always made from an integer.
To all the idiots who believe that any answer is correct: Have you idiots really never wondered why no mathematician made a claim that the question was wrongly worded and has multiple possible answers? Never wondered why, if the question was wrongly phrased, the contestant never came back to get a correct question?
@bowlchamps37 Again, being nitpicky and pedantic about adding an extra term when what they meant should be pretty obvious to someone not trying to be nitpicky and pedantic.
@bowlchamps37 In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer; in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 3*3 and can be written as 3 × 3. This is the generally accepted definition of a Square Number.
@Lendz Elliott Yes, I know. I was just quoting some other guy with the QUOTE "5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9" It´s also not the genereally accepted definition but the only definition.
@rohitchaoji No, it´s about telling you that you look like a fool if you ever used perfect square number. It´s not just a word you add but you completely botch a mathematical term. Imagine you go somewhere with your dad and a tell another person "This is my "daddy father parent man". And also telling you that OP is still wrong.
@bowlchamps37 Again with the pedantry. Stick to football, man. All those head impacts and concussions aren't doing much for your intellect. I'm not just saying that. Concussions are a common football injury and causes brain damage.
No, the question is not framed "wrong." It may be difficult to understand if you don't read it carefully, but 25 is the unambiguously correct answer to the question that was asked.
I also thought the question could have been worded better. I thought any of them could have worked since (x^2 + 0^2 = x^2). Took me a few re-reads to get it.
I think it was the anxiety that made it hard. Try answering a question that requires some actual thought, while under pressure, and see how far you can take it.
Who cares, this isn't a maths quiz. Any rando who knows how squaring works can understand that the answer is unambiguously B. Do you guys really think that this show is going to throw some maths that's above general knowledge in a question? Or are you just trying to show off your epic math skillz to prove you're smarter than the average quizgoer?
@Simon Torres I agree with you. I have a math degree and people here are getting all too technical. Like what are they supposed to say? Natural numbers that is a subset of the real field and non-isomorphic to the complex numbers? Oh, my bad, I should have said field. Give me a break. Obviously they can't all work so you throw out the trivial solutions. I'm not saying it should have been easy to get answer B; what I'm saying is that people here are too technical and pedantic. That's best left for an actual math class.
Ofc it is absolutely clear. It even says the sum of 2 "smaller" squares. So all the 0² people have no point. And this cannot even be catogarized a math question. This is common knowledge. Next time when someone asks who the 1st President of the US was, you cannot answer. I am neither into history nor politics.
4 likes
C Ch2018-08-07 06:52:49 (edited 2018-08-07 06:53:28 )
I am generally slow at math, but I have a logical mind and I got it before the poll The question is complicated for a quiz show with lights on you but not WRONG. Audience and home viewers have no excuse unless they are uneducated... for once an excuse.
Eric Forsyth2018-09-13 09:38:14 (edited 2018-09-13 09:38:50 )
+Stay Calm: The person I replied to said that 5^2 + 0^2 could've worked. It could not, because the question states "two smaller square numbers", and 5^2 is not smaller than 5^2. And no, bowlchamps37 isn't dumb.
Isn't he right though. 0^2 + 4^2 = 16? 0 is > 16 and 4> 16. Therefore 16 is the sum of two smaller squared numbers 0 and 4 unless 0 has suddenly ceased to no longer be a number?
Jim Jeffries If 25 = 16 + 9 is the answer they wanted to hear, then 16 (as a part of the sum) is not smaller than 16 (being one of the options). It seems that the meaning of "smaller" is not clear.
lamakicker69 Im also an engineer and I inmediately understood what they meant, and also I knew the answer before they showed it. 3*3+4*4=5*5 is a thing that even ancient egyptians knew ...
Eric Pive okay so you read the question correctly...I didn't at first....i don't know what your point is? Also if you understood how to do the problem immediately then I would hope you would have been able to know the answer before they revealed it, there was almost 2 minutes between the question and then revealing the correct answer...
Eric Pive I'm not saying it can't be understood...I'm saying I can see how it can be misunderstood. And once again if you understand it then it's not very impressive to know the answer is 16 before they tell you it's 16 because you have well over a minute to solve it before they say which answer is right...unless you are trying to say you somehow knew the answer before they even put up the options
lamakicker69 That's what I meant to say. I knew it before they showed the options. Not that it is any relevant anyway.
But yeah, everything can be misunderstood, although if you read the sentence carefully, there is no ambiguity, that's why I think it isn't terribly phrased as some people say...
Eric Pive yeah but most people just kinda read it quickly and can often make a simple mistake. Also it's impossible to know the answer before they put up the options because you wouldn't know which numbers you were working with
lamakicker69 Well, I knew that 25 could be a solution, I'm sure other solutions exist, but I don't know any more. People should know that they shouldn't read a math question quickly, they have very precise wording that needs to be understood exactly ^^"
+Orhun Sevindi No it couldn't, they needed something the contender could've figured out if he hadn't known about it beforehand, and 25 is literally the only feasible option for that question. Anyone remotely familiar with basic math concepts would know the answer before the options were shown.
Eric Pive It could have easily been 5,12,13 or any other right triangle for that matter. There's no possible way you could know for sure what the answer was, before the options were read to you. Maybe you had an idea of what one solution was but you needed the choices to know they were looking for 25.
Eric Pive I know but under pressure like that it's you can't blame a guy for messing up, and it's not like all those people that didn't say B didn't know how to solve the problem...most of them probably just read it wrong
+citrisprime It couldn't have been any of those numbers, since none of them are themselves square numbers. 25 is the only numbers that's both easy enough to be feasible and also correct, so yeah, anyone familiar with basic math concepts knew the answer before the options popped up.
Well actually, technically speaking, 5,12,13 or 6,8,10 can be easily ruled out before the timer runs out. It wouldn't be likely but the option could be other than "25". You can't be sure but believe it's most likely 25. Besides, every school teaches these special triangles
citrisprime That's like... Exactly what I said? I only said that I knew one solution, which happened to be the correct one. I'm sure it isn't the only one, but it's the most simple.
lamakicker69 Reading wrong is the worse excuse to fail a question. First thing to answer anything, is to make sure you understood what you are asked. If you can't do this, you don't deserve any money tbh. He should be happy he kept 1.000
citrisprime Well, I thought I knew the answer, and I happened to be right. It just came to my mind, before I could think that there could be other solutions, I saw 25 as a possible answer so I knew it was B, since only one answer can be correct... I don't know why we are still talking about this though, it's not relevant to anything.
+citrisprime I wasn't even considering that, because it's asinine. It's a program about general knowledge, not doing mental math. And there's only one feasible and correct answer to that question. Not only couldn't you figure it out, you still can't figure out how others could. I'm sorry, but you're the idiot here.
tenrecc How? 25 could have easily been replaced with 100 or 169 it's not asinine. Just admit you were wrong. Nobody could know for sure what the answer was, even if they think they knew what the answer most likely was
Eric Pive oh its definitely his fault and he doesn't deserve the money but like people shouldn't be shitting on the guy in these comments hahaha the dude made a mistake I'm sure he knew how to do it!
Oh my fucking god, this people are so dense. I DIDN'T KNOW THE FUCKING ANSWER, I JUST KNEW THE MOST SIMPLE SOLUTION AND THAT HAPPENED TO BE THE CORRECT ONE, CAN WE JUST MOVE ON NOW? I can't believe we are still talking about that thing.
@Eric Pive You are so arrogant it's unreal. We get it, you have the right answer and you deserve to get the 15.000 that this guy lost. Please get over yourself.
Koe0 how am i arrogant? everyone is completely missing my point (the question can easily be understood) and talking about wether i knew or i didnt know the answer when this thing has already been clarified and was never interesting anyway.
+absolutiontheory98 thats because a real math test that involves the addition of square numbers would be labeled as a Pythagorean Theorem test, because Pythagorean Theorem is usually its own unit in a math curriculum.
but this isnt a math test. it's a game show. and honestly, in the real world, youre probably gonna get unusually phrased problems thrown at you all the time
Because questions are not asked like that in real maths exams.Someone like me who's used to Cambridge Maths questions for A levels,I interpret it in many ways and I didn't know which interpretation they are asking for.Maybe I also tried solving it under 1 min and I gave up under the pressure.After the answer was given only then I know what they're asking for.It's something to do with the pythogaras concept.
it was a fair question you have to read it all the way though and really think, i get why people would think 16 it makes sense, those werent the squares they were looking for.
Eric Pive Have you taken CIE A levels sir or IB exam or frankly undergraduate degree in Maths??If your knowledge in Maths does not transcend after middle school,you have no right to call me full of shit when you have no idea how real maths question are asked.Exam questions are purposely designed to test the concept and not on the understanding of the statement.
absolutiontheory98 "Exam questions are purposely designed to test the concept and not on the understanding of the statement."
But if you know the concept of Pythagorean triples, you should be able to understand this statement. stop getting mad just because you're bad at interpreting worded math problems. how do you suppose they should have phrased it then, since you claim this one is so "unclear" and "terribly phrased?" give us an example of how you think it shouldve been phrased
absolutiontheory98 Uhm... I'm an engineer, so.. Btw, how is it any relevant? I don't know why you even bring it to the discussion. Also, do you have any way to make the question more clear?
when they said a sum of 2 smaller squares i thought they meant that the 2 smaller squares had to be the same. so a smaller square x2. now thay i see the answer idk why i thought that way but yea i can understand him
Yeah instead of "square numbers" a better term to use would have been "squares" or "perfect squares" because that is what those numbers are actually called. They also could have been more explicit with the sum thing saying two other perfect squares added together but that's just a minor difference imo
I know they mean the same thing, My point and the original comment wasn't that they used the wrong terminology, only that the question was poorly phrased. In my opinion "square" or "perfect square" is a better term to use in this case.
+Eric Pive If you're gonna edit you might as well edit thoroughly. Before you say that isn't relevant, just remember you're arguing clear and concise interpretation from this video. You never claimed to be an english major, but at least don't be a douchy engineer who can't spell. You're making the rest of us engineers seem like we are all illiterate. The question is a very easy question that grade school covers yet most of the audience was not choosing B so it was set up to be a bit mind boggling although it technically is asking for what it intends to get as an answer.
Uh... Dafuq are you talking about? I'm not even english, so you are the only douchy here. Maybe you should talk to me in spanish if you are so afraid that I will look every engineer look English illiterate.
Everyones an engineer these days especially if they're from India.....well that's what the majority of Indians on Clash of Clans say they are when they pretend they're from the UK, USA, Australia or Canada. It's almost as if they're trying to make themselves look clever, like the 18yo Cambridge student above saying it could be interpreted many ways (when it couldn't) and the other Fruit (sorry Citrus) using non-square numbers as why it could have been a different answer.
lamakicker69 why the hell would it be A? Hope your not an engineer since you would probably be fired if you couldn't answer that question. In what world does two square numbers add up to 16? There are physically no square numbers that would add up to 16.
+Mr Muscle In what world does someone with a toddler's grasp of the English language lecture a native English speaking engineering student on a word problem?
Hank And how do I have a toddler's grasp of the English language exactly? I'm not lecturing I'm baffled by how he can not understand that simple "Word problem" even though he's an engineering student. You get taught about square numbers in juniors school, it's not difficult it's just a fancy word for saying a number times by itself once.
"Hope your not" "In what world does two" "physically no square numbers" "a number times by itself" Your misuse and lack of punctuation
He misread/misheard it. It's that simple. Considering 45% of people in the audience thought it was A--the correct answer being the third most selected of the four choices--it seems to have been a pretty common mistake. It's probably caused by a psychological phenomenon similar the one that causes the vast majority of people to not notice repeated words that span a line-break, or the one that allows you to scrmable the odrer of letetrs in wodrs witohut singfictnly reudcnig redabailtiy as I did just now.
Hank wow a few grammar and punctuation mistakes on the internet, must posses toddler English skills. I'm rushing my sentences dude, this isn't an assignment.
+Santiago Ferrari Look up the definition of "square number." What would be the point of defining squares as you seem to be? Literally every number would be a square. sqrt(0)=0 sqrt(-36)=6i Even if we haven't bothered giving a result some sort of notation, you could just leave it as the square root of whatever to continue your calculation
+Fresh Rock Papa-E He's "more correct" in a sense. He's lost the opportunity to win the $16k, and instead won $1k. He never actually won the $16k, so it's not really as simple as subtracting the two. Even if it were, that would introduce the potential that he could go on to win the $1M, which would then mean he actually "lost" $999k. Then, if you look at what he "has earned so far" as earnings, he would have lost the $16k that he earned, but then won $1k as a sort of consolidation. If YouTube tells me "failed to post" imma be pissed.
How is it more correct? If you interpret things that way, then he hasn't lost anything. Only then you have a point, but not if you claim that he has lost 16k.
+Fresh Rock Papa-E I know the actual solution. Play the video--after a potential ad--for a second. YouTube doesn't let you comment on a video that's open if you haven't watched any of it, which really only hinders the few of us who don't block ads. Good move, Google.
+Maarten Mtr Have you ever heard of a 3-4-5 triangle? It's a fairly fundamental part of geometry. That's why he knew it off the top of his head. It doesn't work with 4, 5, and 6 because that's not how scaling works. 4, 16/3, and 20/3, though, and the easier 6, 8, and 10.
Hank The amount of times we use 3-4-5 triangle in upper engineering classes is almost never. It may come up here or there but I can see how it doesn't come to mind to some people, let alone engineers. However you dont need to know the triangle to do the question, just a short cut.
And yes, if I remember correctly, my first choice was A because I didn't wait to process the question properly (edit: and I'm an idiot). I think it was probably just because 16's a nicer number. 2^2=4 -> 4^2 = 16; 2^4=16; etc. I do a lot of stuff with digital logic, so round base 2 values are very attractive to me.
Of course, then I actually read the question properly and realized what the correct answer was.
anon86 It happens from time to time though. It's one of those things that you end up memorizing, like the sines and cosines of 30º,45º and 60º, sqrt(2), and so on.
+Fresh Rock Papa-E My first response can be found in that last post of mine "I'm an idiot" The second can be inferred from that same post, being that the question was about squares and my eyes immediately went to the nicest number. Think about when you reflexively jump up and hit your head on a shelf, or you pull your arm back and hit it on the wall behind you. Why would you bang your head on the shelf or elbow the wall?
Have you never made stupid arithmetic mistakes on an exam? I just got a linear algebra test back. The 3% that I lost were because I screwed up a couple of elementary row operations. Your brain sees a somewhat familiar pattern, and spits out the most common result of that pattern before you have a chance to think about the problem.
Fresh Rock Papa-E its the same type of mistake. You're missing the point. This question is about memorization more than anything. I can assure you that many people who may be great at differential equations, could have completed screwed that question up if watching this video.
+anon86 I might even go so far as to say that people who are comfortable with higher level math--like DEs, Linear Algebra, and Complex Variables--would be more likely to screw it up than people only fluent up to something like college algebra or calc 1 because the latter group is more likely to be careful while people like you or I often don't want to waste any time on such trivial calculations.
It's not the same type of mistake. One is just a computation error. The other is being lazy and not trying to understand the question before answering. They have completely different causes.
Hank Quite surely this is the most retarded thing I will read today, and I'm quite confident of it despite being just 1:29 AM here. Anyone who has been taught advanced math (or anything about stem really), has developed the methodology to think critically and reasonably before jumping to conclusion using his intuition. It's just necessary to go through education. You don't answer questions until you have read them like 3 times and you are confident of what you are asked.
Hank I'm gonna ignore this guy for a bit, seems a little too eager at 1:30 AM. I know exactly what you mean, there is this math equation that this world renowned mathematician could never solve. Some retards can in like 2 min. It's somewhere on vsauce but I can link if you're interested. Anyways the point stands, you'll be better at what you did more recently in a lot of cases, like this one where a 3-4-5 triangle hasn't come up in my engineering years but would a lot in grade 11. I feel this guy might be around that age. Nothing wrong with that just a 3-4-5 triangle might be more relevant to him.
Guys like patrickjmt make a living off of dumbing things down in math, less wordy. He is considered one of the best online for highschool to early uni math courses, and he would never have used that type of wording. It is done with the intention to not fork up a million dollars, some people just dont get that part.
+anon86 I think I may have already seen it. I think a bigger, more common issue with situations like this is that there's really no reason to analyze the questions extremely carefully and scrupulously perform the algebra. We in the comments aren't trying to win a million dollars. Why waste more than a few seconds solving it and reading it? When you're taking a difficult test, you don't have time to read through the question thrice before solving it. You answer it based on your experience and intuition, and move on. If you have time, you go back. You can even go back to earlier questions on the GRE now.
If you're writing a paper, signing off on a project, or releasing a product, yes you check everything over carefully. Then again, none of those situations require you to glean the intended meaning from a word problem.
Hank Exactly, and oh thats helpful, when I wrote the SAT I remember they wouldn't let yo go back on anything once each section was done. But yeah, had someone else worded this much better, I bet 70% of the audience would not guess A, much less. This math problem should be more a math problem than word problem.
+anon86 They still don't let you go back to old sections since the difficulty of the second section is based on how well you did on the first section, but I think the old version didn't allow you to revisit the previous questions of a section after submitting it. I'm not sure how the paper delivered version handles things, though... Maybe they have a few graders on standby with the key to grade each part before you get through the first section of the other part? That probably won't be relevant for you, though, since you being on YouTube makes me think wherever you're from will use the computerized version.
My advice is to start studying for that a couple months in advance. I only gave myself a couple of weeks, so I didn't improve a whole lot... CrunchPrep has some great guides, study plans, and links to free resources like full length practice exams.
Oh, I love the ad hominems, fyi I'm about to finish my mechanical engineering degree. Not that it matters in any way, but since you wanted to talk about this... Also, I've just read again what I typed last night, and it completely understandable.
Ad hominems lmao, okay I was just going to give you some time because you seem to be more argumentative than anything else that could be constructive... at least at the time. The only argument here is about the language used in the million dollar question. It wasn't worded to be comprehensible, even if it was comprehended by people. And I was talking to Hank about engineering not you, I really don't have time for arrogant, pretentious engineers, as if there aren't enough that think they are top shit because they remember pythagorean triples from grade school.
I know it's my fault for using "Hank" as a screen name, and I know there's no better designation for people to use, but I always chuckle a little whenever someone refers to me as Hank. It's a strange anomaly. When I use other screen names, it doesn't faze me at all, but when I use "Hank," I giggle internally every time. Maybe it's because it's a real name?
Fresh Rock Papa-E So just arrogant I suppose. And you can figure that out yourself by just going through any comments about how it was worded poorly. For one I would have said 2 distinct numbers rather than "what two numbers". I guess I have an argument now.. Actually just to shut you up here: "The sum of two distinct square numbers happens to equal which of these numbers". I wouldn't mention that A B C or D are perfect squares whatsover. Them doing that is just a red herring. And honestly go through your comments from when this all started and decide if you're a pretentious douche or not. I'm not the only one who's called you out on being one.
I'm the pretentious one now? You're acting like a champ because you remembered a pythagorean triple, that's as arrogant and pretentious as engineers get.
+MrTarz No, anon's calling him arrogant because he's arrogant. He's used the "I'm an engineer. I'm smarter than you. Stop trying to debate me" card, despite not being an actual engineer. He claims to be a student about to finish up his ME degree. Depending on where he's from, he might be considered an engineer once he gets that, but in the US, he isn't even eligible to start taking the certification exams. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even know about them. Do you refer to a medical student as a doctor?
Hank Uh... I didn't "use" the "I'm an angineer I'm smarter than you". HE was the one who brought up the topic of my level of education, and I simply corrected him. How is that being pretentious or arrogant? If anything he was that, assuming my level of education.
And I didn't even say I was an engineer. I always said I'm just a student, so dafuq are you talking about? You criticize me for things I didn't say at all!
+Fresh Rock Papa-E Your 4th comment in this thread: "Im also an engineer and I inmediately understood what they meant, and also I knew the answer before they showed it." Which in itself could be considered arrogant considering you go on to call other people idiots for doing exactly what you did; You "knew the answer before they showed it" despite there being an infinite number of solutions described by the Pythagorean Triple that you so proudly remembered.
He didn't assume your level of education. He said that your comments made you seem like you had that level of education. He even went onto say that having that level of education isn't a bad thing. You seemed to be deeply offended for having your self perceived superiority or prowess recognized by him. That is, by definition, arrogance.
If you're going to call people idiots for not re-reading a question carefully several times before even letting their brains do anything related to said question, it might be a good idea to read others' comments--or at least your own comments--carefully once or twice before replying in an emotionally driven salt-fest.
+MrTarz Just to clarify, he claimed to be an engineer, which he's not. While claiming such a thing is being... Less than honest... It still wasn't arrogant.
He then slowly started calling other people stupid, which could start to be considered arrogant, but my first few comments in this thread were still defending him. It was then that I started explaining to him what these "idiots" may have been thinking and he started to really show his colors. He called me an idiot for doing exactly what he did; the only difference was that I caught my mistake less than a second after I'd made it while he left his and luckily chose the one choice of the infinite solutions that he could have chosen from had he understood the method he'd used.
He then dropped his hand on the table when anon pointed out that his reasoning, experience, and mannerisms lined up with those of a high school student, making sure to emphasize that it was just an observation and that there's nothing wrong with being a high school student even if that ended up being the case. Fresh didn't seem to agree that there was nothing wrong with being a high school student.
Fresh Rock Papa-E yeah only interested when it suits you, stop coming back to this then. I mean you have lied about your own word more than once now, but 'whatever man'
MrTarz Engineering students don't typically have CV's... like ever. I knew the answer but at first glance I was caught on the wording. That's quite the jump in logic you made by assuming I called him arrogant for knowing the answer. To be honest I haven't taken one word of this guy seriously, so I would not be bothered if he claimed he got the answer. This question would never be asked of an engineer in his field ever, so I find it hard to believe he's even in mecheng since all the mecheng friends I have would most definitely trash the irrelevance to this question in mech.
(root of 49 /root of 2) squared (root of 49 /root of 2) squared = 49 roots anulate with squared, but the number needed to be squared, folowing the question. so its basicaly half of 49 + half of 49 = 49.
this aplies to every awnser
this question was bull shit this man should sue them.
for the awnser to be corect, the number NEEDED TO BE A NATURAL NUMBERS, leading to a pretty bad made question
Fresh Rock Pape-E He's trying to salvage his loses. root 49 is a square number QizziT every time you say (49)^.5 , just assume you're saying 7. & is a whole number. 10 is a whole number right? Well using your logic if I tie 10 up into some stupid expression, lets say (10^2)/10...is that expression a whole number, yes because that expression is just a way of expressing the (whole) number 10.
Daniel Hu well your area must not be stats then. An average seventh grader can work it out? Well look how much of the audience couldn't. Does not align with what you said. You just dont get it, this is not about the math difficulty its about the wording. I already proved up there^ waaaay up there, that it could be worded better.
ps. please dont say ohhh idiot you didnt get it haaha, once I got my mind past the wording, I got it. Super simple, it's not even about forgetting the meaning of square numbers, it's simply the wording. Nah stfu Daniel, man I hate that westernized asian type, you're like the worst of both worlds. I would much rather you get your friends off the boat and switch with them, I like the ones that I don't understand.
I was talking about the people who wouldn't have been able to solve it even with perfect wording and honestly don't get me into YOUR passionate three week flame war since I never asked for that.
And please don't bring politics and stuff into this discussion here insulting peoples race and even worse saying you hate them unless you are here to discuss race then I will ignore any further notifs on this comment thread. Wow the world really is a dangerous place you just made me reassess my safety online
gaaazz tank Maths? must be an international student. Every fucking indian in my eng class calls it maths, man fuck internationals. And ya I proved it, my version was much easier to understand for everyone I told. And I never said the program had an obligation to cater their wording for us, it wasn't unfair wording either, just more complex than what I wrote. You of all foreign bastards should know that clarity in speaking english is key to not coming across as indian online.
JFrog it’s worded in a way to make people think that the answer is 16 or makes you lean there.
By mentioning that the answers are all square numbers and repeating that makes you THINK that the importance is that the square number answer should be composed of what makes it a square number which is also a square number.
The square root of 16 is 4, with 4 also being a perfect square number. That makes the question misleading but not wrong. It’s just tricking you that’s all.
The better way to rephrase the question in order to orient your mind in the right direction would be “Which of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers?” Thus not making you think that being a square number is the MOST import part of the problem.
Fire Boogaloo no. The square root of 25 is 5 which is not a square number.
Which is why at first glance people would think that 16 is the answer when at first glance it is the ONLY answer that has both factors when square rooted to also be perfect squares (being 4).
12 likes
Fire Boogaloo2018-12-08 01:18:30 (edited 2018-12-08 01:20:31 )
@Nico-v11 Ah ok, Im with you now. You're saying that 4 is the square root of 16 and 4 can also be square rooted to make 2. That doesnt really make sense though since the question asks you to sum. I dont get how you come to 16 as the answer from that logic unless you dont know what 'sum' means. Then again, if you dont know what sum means and know what square rooting is, you have bigger problems to worry about.
Also, I thought you meant 25, 36 etc. weren't square numbers but 16 was, not that 4 is a square number and 5 and 6 aren't.
@Nico-v11 When you're on millionaire, you kinda need to be able to take the question as a whole or you aren't gonna win. I sort of get where you're coming from but I doubt that everyone followed that process to get 16. Most are probably just idiots.
@Brek Martin but it could only be assumed. Questions that could be interpreted so differently that the answers also would be different shouldnt be asked in quizshows. The questions should be specified enough that stuff like this cant happen
Every number has a square root, but if every number is going to be a square number, there’s no reason to qualify any number as such. It’s just a waste of a word. Just as it would be to define a set of integers as evenly divisible by 1.
It's not really poorly worded. It seems pretty self explanatory to me. 3 squared (9) plus 4 squared (16) equals 5 squared (25). So the awnser is clearly 25.
@Nico-v11 Well the question is clearly asking for the sum of two square numbers. 4+2 clearly equals 6 not 16. Secondly all the awnsers are square numbers. There is nothing misleading or ambigious about this question for anyone who has any basic knowledge of Maths. Thirdly you say the question should be phrased. "Which of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers" But isn't that exactly what the question says. Why does the fact that they are square numbers alter what the question is asking.
@Ferry Hömig I think you need to go back to school. Please explain how the number 1 for example can be the sum of 2 smaller square numbers. Also please explain how 36, 49, and 16 can be the sum of 2 other square numbers
The principle above would work on ever number. Its possible to really pick any 2 numbers of which the sum is the wished number. For 16 we could pick 12 and 4 for example which would then be sqrt(12)^2 + sqrt(4)^2 which would be 12 + 4 which is 16.
@Ferry Hömig The square root of 12 would be a decimal number and therefore not a square number. Using your theory you could just add up any 2 numbers that add up to 16. For example you could pick 15 + 1 or 7 +9 etc. I admire the way you like to challenge things but at some point you must use common sense. You can't make a square number just by squaring it's root.
I answered the question as soon as I saw the thumbnail without even seeing the options. But only because I still studying and I come across squares and cubes and roots all the time. And also a Pythagores Triangle of sides 3,4,5 is the most common example.
But that guy or probably me in 5-10 yrs wouldn't get that under pressure.
@John C J Yeah, well some people cant be reasoned with. I cant help it if people can't grasp what people are telling them. I'm not the best at maths but this is pretty basic maths
@EBOJFM DBOOJOH he's talking about numbers that aren't whole integers, that square to bigger numbers, e.g. 16= 3 squared (9) + √7 which is something like 2.6 or 2.7 : basically he's trying to look like he's smart, and technically he's right, but hes just being pedantic and annoying
@EBOJFM DBOOJOH technically every number is an other number squared however something only counts as a square number if the number you square to get it is a whole integer
I didn’t read ‘sum’ in that question and I was like ‘lmao what?’ I would’ve said 16 because 4^2= 16 and a square has 4 sides (this was still when I didn’t read the question properly and didn’t understand it) and then after like 3 minutes i was ‘sum’.. I’m like wtf, why am I so blind.
@Ryan Hutchinson 2 squared =4 4 squared = 16 4+16 = 20 So the sum of 2 squared and 4 squared is 20 not 16. The question is asking for the sum of 2 squared numbers. (3 squared)9 + 16(4 squared)= 25 9 and 16 are both smaller than 25. Therefore 25 is the only possible awnser.
@JFrog 4 square equals 16 obviously 4x4=16. It said which square number also happens to be the sum of two smaller squares. 2 square equals 4, because obviously 2x2=4. Which that squared equals 16. And like the question ask which of these squared numbers is the sum of two smaller squared numbers.....
@JFrog it says the sum of two smaller square numbers. It doesn't say anything about whole numbers. Besides, they are all whole numbers. Which would actually be 2 that would give you 4 and can produce 16 when squared... This question is really worded poorly
James Alvarado - "sum" means the result of addition. Your line of reasoning would be the product (result of multiplication) of square numbers, not the sum of square numbers.
Ferry Hömig - the phrase "square number" has a specific meaning in mathematics. A "square number", by definition, is the square of an integer. 12 is not a "square number" because there is no integer which squares to 12.
@Nico-v11 R u sure that u still remembered the statement of the qsn when u claimed so? Not meant to mock u or even insult u, yet the case of misinterpretation that u addressed didn't really make any sense to anyone aware of basic English grammar, understood the definition of "square number" and "sum", had experience working out fundamental mathematical qsns. Even the primary school students I've ever assisted won't misinterpreted such a qsn in ur addressed way.
@Paul Shin Im not really understanding the paragraph "Therefore we must have x > 1 and y > 1. Are you saying that, because we can't square an irrational number?
I understand the wrong use of the definition "square number", I got that now, but it seems like with your example you're also trying to disprove, that we can represent any natural number by the sum of two squared numbers. Or did I misunderstand something?
This has almost nothing at all to do with being "bad at math"; I have studied and passed courses in partial differential equations and numerical approximations of integrals, and I still found this question a bit confusing for a while.
When it says "two smaller square numbers", people tend to think of 16, because 4 itself is a square, and 16 is 4*4. It probably should've been worded "two smaller distinct square numbers" or something along those lines.
EscapeVelocity "sum" 4 + 4 = 8, where 9 + 16 = 25. Also, anyone who's done grade 9 math knows this from that basic 3/4/5 triangle used so often in the Pythagoras theorem.
Ketroc Pythagorean theorem definitely has nothing to do with this lmfao. And it is terribly worded because they never said you had to square the 2 smaller numbers. The question implies that the 2 smaller numbers have a square root
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?" So many people in the comments seem to be confused. Let's break this down. "Which of these square numbers..." -> all the following answers must be square numbers, i.e. the result of one number multiplied against itself (aka its square root). If there had been any NON-square numbers in the answers, like 13 (the sum of 4+9), it could be dismissed immediately. "...also happens to be the sum..." -> this means that the answer must be the result of at least two other numbers ADDED together. "...of two smaller square numbers?" -> this means that the answer must be the result of only two other numbers added together. These two numbers are both SMALLER and SQUARE, meaning they are of less value than the answer, and when square-rooted, will also produce an integer (i.e. no decimal places needed to express them).
This, to me, is not a difficult question. But if the person being questioned hasn't had to do any math for a long time, they may be out of practice. This applies to the audience too... though it's pretty disturbing, nonetheless, to see that so many people could fail a grade 8 Pythagorean Theorem (c^2 = a^2 + b^2) question. Add the pressure of being on national television and the chance to win a million dollars at stake, and I think it's understandable why he messed up. Still don't understand why the mob failed, but hey, just more proof for why popularity doesn't make a thing right.
+Cheis This is exactly Pythagorean theorem. The answer is the basic 3/4/5 triangle we've all used a thousand times, which is why you don't even have to figure it out, you can just recall it from memory. It also doesn't imply anything. It clearly says "square number" which by definition is a number which is a square of an integer.
Cheis "Pythagorean theorem definitely had nothing to do with this lmfao."
No. Pythagorean theorem has everything to do with this. The IDEA of the theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2, which is exactly what the question was asking (which of these numbers, 16, 25, 36, 49, can be c^2?)
While the Pythagorean Theorem is deeply connected with the question, I would take pause before saying that the question "is exactly the Pythagorean theorem" or that the "Pythagorean theorem has everything to do" with the question.
After all, you can have a right triangle where the hypotenuse has a length of 16, even though 16 is not a correct answer to the given question. Certainly, the whole reason that Pythagorean triples are interesting is because of the Pythagorean theorem (hence the name Pythagorean triples), and certainly, most people who remember the famous 3-4-5 right triangle from geometry (which can be proven to be valid lengths of the sides of a right triangle using the Pythagorean theorem) would know the answer immediately. But I would still not be ready to say that the question is the Pythagorean theorem or has everything to do with it.
You're confused because she gave the answer as 3^2 + 4^2 = 25. Of course 3 is not a square number so you think that it is poorly worded. However, the question is "... the sum of two smaller square numbers." 9 is a square number and 16 is a square number. She should have simply said, "9+16 = 25"
MisterBinx, it's simple. Get a list of square numbers (4,9,16,25,36,49) and look at ABCD in the question asked and see what square numbers you can use to make either ABC or D. 16+9 = 25 therefore B is the correct answer.
I've taken differential equations and have never called 25 or 16 "square numbers" in all the college math courses I've taken. I guess I'm ignorant of that. I've taken trig, 4 calculus classes, linear algebra, and more. It could have been worded better.
MisterBinx square number is a number that you get when you multiply a number with itself so 1×1=1 2×2=4 3×3=9 4×4=16 5×5=25 6×6=36 7×7=49 8×8=64 9×9=81 10×10=100 I learned this when I was 13 or younger I'm 20 now can't remember exactly when
"I've taken differential equations and have never called 25 or 16 "square numbers" in all the college math courses I've taken. I guess I'm ignorant of that. I've taken trig, 4 calculus classes, linear algebra, and more. It could have been worded better."
Not a good argument for the question being badly worded when the question literally gives the definition of a square number away by saying "Which of these square numbers" and then proceeding to give the answer choices as"16, 25, 36, and 49".
"When it says "two smaller square numbers", people tend to think of 16, because 4 itself is a square, and 16 is 4*4."
What the hell? It says THE SUM of two square numbers, not the product. So no, there's no way it could be 16. It took me half a second to get it right, I didn't even have to wait for C and D to appear. As soon as answer B appeared, I know it was the right one. It's not very difficult to do 16+9.
It was horribly phrased instead of saying "Which of these 'squared' numbers...", they said "Which of these 'square' numbers...". All they needed was 1 letter.
Maybe a bit unclear question but COME ON. These are grown up people in the audience that probably have all graduated... What the fuck do they do at school?? I dont even speak English natively and it took me maybe 10 sec to figure out what the question meant... And then another 10sec to solve it.
:D :D :D Pythagorean theorem has everything to do with this... How the hell did you passed primary school (or did you?) ONLY numbers that are SUM of squares of two smaller numbers make the lenght of the longest part in right angle triangle with all sides lenght sin whole numbers... Btw I knew its gonna be 25 before she finsihed that question and I am not a native speaker, how the hell is that bad wording?
mrkv4k Pythagorean Theorem has nothing to do with this. If it was a triangle and they asked to find the hypotenuse then Pythagorean Theorem would but no, it doesn't in this case
Well, if you don't understand the connection, that doesn't mean there isn't one.... The question literrary means "find the third number of the smallest Pythagorean tripplet"
I am actually from Czech Republic and english is not my first language. And how am i supposed to interpret this question? Am i looking for same numbers, or do they have to be different? Are they already to be cubed or am i looking for prime numbers? Not american, not defending american stupidity, stupid ppl are everywhere, in America there is just a lot of people and i am in uni, so i guess jokes on you.
square numbers are... well 16 is a square number because it's 4². the question is, which square number is also the sum of two smaller square numbers (as it's not specified, they can be the same or not). in this case, the answer is 25, because: 16+9=25 & 16=4², 9=3² the question is not horribly asked if you are a native speaker and visited 5th grade maths (maybe 7th). (i'm german, so... it's also well asked if your english is well enough and you know every word in the question)
Fine. I'll explain why it was an ok question. According to wikipedia, the definition of a square number is as follows:
In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it can be written as 3 × 3.
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?" Let's list all the square numbers from 0-49, since 49 is the highest number from the possible answers
Using the process of elimination we can eliminate 49, because it has to be the sum of two smaller square numbers therefore 49+0=49 is not valid, and so on. 36 and 16 can be eliminated similarly.
Nowhere does it say the numbers that we add together has to be different from eachother, but they don't have to as 8,12,5, 18 nor 24,5 is a square number. Therefore we end up with the answer, B: 25. Good luck with your academic degree.
How are you supposed to interpret this question? Easy. Are you looking for the same numbers or do they have to be different? Either as long as they're square numbers! Are you looking for cubed or prime numbers? Again another stupid question from you as the question says which of these SQUARE numbers add up to make a SQUARE number, so you're looking for SQUARE numbers. Now to show how stupid you are as a uni student here's it broken down. A square number is a number where 2 numbers have been multiplied by themselves. The answers are 4 square numbers. The question wants the sum of TWO SQUARE numbers that are smaller than the 4 possible answers. A sum is 2 numbers which have been added together. Here's some smaller square numbers: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. Now you have to work out which TWO of those add together to make one of the answers. 9+16 = 25
***** shit, you're right. however, your thinking outside of the box is an example of your own intelligence making you ignorant. the question has only one answer that would be seen by everyone as correct. don't overthink it.
***** are you all right there? you appear to be very annoyed at something. are you trying to validate yourself by demeaning other people on the internet? at the moment, it's no longer about you telling me i'm wrong, and more about you just trying to be better than me. i don't want to converse with people like you, who can't prove to themselves that they're worth something without trying to make everyone else seem like trash. also, i'm not a woman. thread muted
***** I think it's about time you went back to an English speaking college, not a Spanish speaking one, then they might be able to teach you Maths correctly. I seriously doubt that though. You can't teach planks.
1 like
Daniel Gardecki2017-01-17 21:18:15 (edited 2017-01-17 21:19:39 )
Square Number definition: The product of a number multiplied by itself Examples of Squares:
1x1 = 1 2x2 = 4 3x3 = 9 4x4 = 16 5x5 = 25
Integer definition: Any number that is not a fraction Examples of Integers:
Santiago Ferrari you're stupid there's only one right answer since you can use only two smaller square numbers than what the answer is. It says it in the question.
+Santiago Ferrari as Daniel already stated a square number is a number multiplied by itself, like 20x20= 400. And the question asked is what number is a square number that can be made using 2 other square numbers so 25 is correct because 5x5=25 (so it's a square number) 4x4 + 3x3 (2 other square numbers) = 25.
Also if your kid said they were all right your kid is very wrong UNLESS he said that they were all square numbers than he is right YOU are stupid and used that information incorrectly.
That would be a very strange nomenclature then. Square is when you take something to the power of two, and a number is any number, not just the natural numbers. So if the meaning of those words change when you combine them, then the English language failed to make sense at that point.
personally I have only encountered square numbers as something that can be created by multiplying a natural number "with itself". I guess you can make a difference between a square number and a squared number.
It is not completely different. Just like a blue car means something different than a red car, but not completely different. A prime number is something different than an irrational number. If we could not categorize things, and numbers, it would be very annoying to communicate :P.
@A random marvel fan - you need to learn how to read.
I never said there is nothing like "perfect square". I said there is nothing like "perfect square number". Big difference.
Perfect square is an actual mathematical term and has a definition in english vocabulary. Perfect square number is not a mathematical term.
Imagine if we, instead of "root", started saying "root number". Don't you think that you would sound idiotic? It's quite important to use proper terminology in mathematics, because sometimes some terms are pretty similar and can make a confusion when people use those terms, yet they are not familiar with it.
Jim Fair2018-10-28 14:43:29 (edited 2018-10-28 14:44:02 )
The show's questions are normally geared towards questions of memory and not solving puzzles... That said, the question was not hard given the level it came at.
@Imtotallydiggingthis Wait let me do the math quick: root 7 squared + 3 squared=16 squared. 7+9=256 16≠256 Therefore root 7, 3 and 16 are not pythagorean triplets as they do not satisfy Pythogorean theorem?(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
I guess I stated it in a misleading way. 16 has already been squared. I said 16 because that was the option in the question. Bu the number in the triplet would be 4 of course. (√7)^2 + 3^2 = 4^2
Imtotallydiggingthis and D D - the terminology "square number" is very old. It dates back to Euclid. It comes from a time when the only things that were considered to be numbers were the positive integers. So in Euclid's time "square of a number" meant what we would say as "square of a positive integer" today.
Nowadays, our conception of number is much broader than Euclid's, but the terminology remains used the way Euclid used it, since the terminology is pointless if we expand it to our modern notion of "number" (every complex number is the square of some complex number, for example).
Ok, thanks to a comments I did solve this but damm, it was not an easy question to me, im not sharp in maths, I can get sharp but still im to idiot to get this at first sight.
I mean, just how stupid were the people in the audience that only 30% knew the answer and this is such an easy question, WOW. He could have just squared the first 5 numbers and he would have figured it out.
It's not as easy as you seem to think to be able to process this kind of question under a lot of pressure. And I am saying this as someone who has juggled partial differential equations and numerical approximations of integrals at university for several years, and currently work with Maxwell's Equations in a course on electromagnetic field theory (which by the way uses the Pythagorean Theorem all the time, since it involves a lot of distances between charges - in fact, it involves the Pythagorean Theorem INSIDE INTEGRALS), so I am obviously very good at math, and I still felt somewhat confused by this question for a while.
!when knowing math costs you to die like your in hell , but i just take the stress and i let the machine do the math. " boy your going to get it. dude--------- \ 2)a good wake up feelng . like had dreams about monkeys. it's like not a great thing , but like dude what if there were girl monkeys?! would you kiss them? if they dropped a knee and like put out a hand , i'd try to teach them to dance. "tap your feet" and they'd be like in our common language. " i just got hands and they'd be clapping and I'd be stomping on a rock and then we'd have music and then the party went. huhuhuhuhuhu. as the wind passes overhead and then we all look up and there is a giant rock passing over head and then we all go silent and go uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. " a sudden collapse of trees and we would have forests or rain anymore. , but luckily we all went to check up on the crater and turned into dinosaurs , cause they were like way after , that humans wern't worth it and it was so much better, but we checked up on it and found out it wasn't actually dinosaurs and you just started to peel and were actually a snake. There was this one guy who really hated us way in the future called" hell snack" and he was like "your the 15th victim of my high lvl attack! and I was pulling shedding monkeys out of the fire that this what I can recall as the santa clause of the santi maria. Our language changed and we were suprised they didn't understand us. It was all in the brain chemistry of that huge rock that fell from the sky. Global warming never happened because it left a huge crater in the ocean and we all went to it's jaccuzi - lw
(1)when knowing math costs you to die like your in hell , but i just take the stress and i let the machine do the math. " boy your going to get it. dude i got this thing, so long ago and we were like fly to singapore! i really love that one~. o mi to fo nan mo guan gong. rocks don't fail when they fall gemmed super computers do.
For all the smug math experts here, the audience is not bad at math at all. They are bad at english. The sentence is confusing and i had to read it five times to know what it ment. If it was written in x y = z format (you know, actual language math uses) most would know.
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because a number cannot be smaller than itself, you cannot derive the answer by summing it with 0.
It took me a while to work this out in my head because I was using the same “smaller square number”. I got it eventually but it wasn’t the easiest question in the world.
I work with the Pythagorean Theorem in 3 dimensions all the time, even in the forms of VARIABLE factors, and I still found this question a bit confusing for a while. How do you explain that?
I am confident most people bashing the dude would fail too. Math problem is trivial compared to decoding that word salad under pressure of being in front of live audience and recorded to be shown on TV.
@mambda Comments bash both, not just the audience.
These recording sessions are long, everyone is tired and this is a high effort question in a 0 reward/penalty game (for the audience). How many of them do you think seriously looked for solution before they were polled? Now how many of them do you think only started doing so when they were asked (and pressure got on). The answer 16 really makes it seem like people missed the "square" in "square numbers" , think 16 = 8 + 8. Again, too much irrelevant info in the question.
Also, as I said, actual math in this problem is trivial. Here's a similar problem, that will trip up even more people for exact same reasons:
What is the 2nd number that is a sum of 2 prime number and is divisible by 3? (by the way, if I gave a multiple options, I wouldn't make it as easy)
Could you do it in your head? In how long? What are the difficulties of this problem? It's not basic math, is it?
@Shizlgizl All the information in the question is relevant. Dropping any part of it would allow multiple answers.
Your question is poorly worded. Better would be: "What is the 2nd smallest number that is the sum of two primes and is divisible by 3?"And yes, I can do this in my head. Also giving multiple options would in fact make it easier. The answer is 9 (6 would be the smallest). Took about a minute. Square numbers are significantly more trivial than primes and divisibility by a specific number.
@mambda Core of original question: "Which of these numbers is the sum of 2 square numbers?". About twice shorter than original - nothing lost.
Much like squares, you (or at least I) had to memorize some primes (enough to answer my question). Much like squares you can find primes by doing trivial math if you don't remember them (I suspect this and getting caught off guard are the 2 biggest reasons for the mass flop).
The point of my question was to highlight that the difficulty of both questions doesn't stem from math. Every single person in that studio was capable of solving the math portion of the question (which is multiplication and adding/subtracting a number). If you map out how you solved the original problem and my problem you'll notice they are identical problems (in terms of steps and tools required to solve and available mental shortcuts). Keep in mind any mental shortcuts you take and extra steps you'd take if you didn't have those shortcuts.
For example: knowing multiplication table is not the same as knowing squares of each number or just knowing squares square numbers on their own. If you remember 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36... (bypassing the number a square number originates from) you breeze through the question. If you remember squares of each number 1²=1, 2²=4 , 3²=9... it will take a bit longer as you're going through 1 extra step to get to a square. Going through multiplication table has the more extra steps to a square number. Going through actual multiplication is crazy amount of arithmetic within the scope of this problem. Doubt anybody had to do it, but just to illustrate the potential layers to solving a problem.
These seemingly insignificant differences, each adds an extra step to a ladder which you get thrown off of when you lose focus. If you don't do math in your job the answer is not immediately obvious and you have to climb this ladder multiple times (trial and error)
Yeah I don’t get it. Square numbers? So like, each number should have a square root symbol above it? And the sum, like, =16 or = 4? This question is not worded very well.
Knowing the Pythagorean Theorem and basic trigonometry definitely help in understanding this problem. Also knowing perfect squares is a must. The only thing that threw me off when I first watched this video was the term "square number." I was able to get the answer anyways, but I had to think about it for a few minutes. Once I understood that square numbers are perfect squares, I knew the answer right away.
Perfect squares are something that most people learn about in elementary school or early middle school. You won't be reviewing this in college unless you study pure mathematics, especially number theory. I studied computer science for my Bachelor's degree and later returned to college to get my Master's in finance. I never studied perfect squares in my math classes. Later I bought a textbook on basic mathematics to refresh my skills and fill in some gaps I knew I had, and I learned about perfect squares there.
4x4 = 16 would be the product of two squares. The question specifically asks for the SUM of two squares. For a^2+b^2=16 no solutions for a and b (in the integers) exist.
😂 I feel bad for the guy! Unless you had a very thorough 6th grade teacher. You would not have understood the question😅
The question is meant to confuse you. And is a baited one at that.
The square root and squared numbers reflect off primes. Unless you had a math degree and 5 to 10 minutes to sit and figure it out. There would be no way to understand this.
I would even say only 2% to 10% of the audience understood this question. The rest just guessed with no clue.
@LaughingStock55 I have studied and passed multiple math courses in an actual engineering physics program at university, and I still found this question a bit confusing for a few minutes.
And I am saying this as someone who constantly juggles the Pythagorean Theorem around in 3D space, and even has the Pythagorean Theorem in the denominator as a VARIABLE inside integrals, so I am probably significantly better at the Pythagorean Theorem than most people in here, probably including you as well.
You have a hard time with this question because you either forgot about perfect squares, or you never learned about them in the first place.
I can guarantee that I know the Pythagorean Theorem much better than you because you have consistently made inaccurate comments about this problem the moment you first starting commenting on this video.
Take a hint: don't assume you know more than someone if you don't even know who they are.
@Peter , not sure what your seeming obsession with the Pythagorean Theorem in proving your knowledge. I assume since the video question references squares, but your comments never actually utilizes it this way, it's always, "I know my Pythagorean Theorem," which does nothing to prove your skill or knowledge. If you want to show your math prowess in general, there are a large number of other areas you could present. For me, a brain teaser was working with irreducible polynomials in finite fields when learning coding theory and basics of cryptography. Though, this is still quite basic compared to others in mathematics (I'm far more an engineer than a mathematician). It is indeed good advice to assume you're not the smartest in the room. Especially if you're going to attempt an argument by authority and say you are right because you know more... that isn't how the world works.
With that said, the question confused me for a second, though I think largely because the cobwebs had to be cleared away first, haha. These days my mathematics use is largely computer based purely from an efficiency standpoint... but apparently some parts of my memory have faded. Though, the question as presented is largely just a brute force one considering there are only a few squares less than each of the numbers given for summation testing and/or subtraction, no fancy math required. I simply did 25 - 16 = 9 which is a square and there's your answer.
@mambda If you have forgotten the exact definition of the term "square number", then this question will be very confusing no matter how good you are at maths.
50 or 60 yrs since I was in a math class. Is there an easier way than just starting out one number at a time, squaring it, then subtracting it from each of the 4 answers and then seeing if the resulting "difference" is a perfect square?I guess I'm asking if there is a formula. The way I did it would take forever if it was a large number, lol.
And fir all the people with negative comments about AMERICANS, we're a combination of every country in the world! Perhaps YOUR country helped dumb us down!
I think the wording of the sentence at the end is a little wrong or maybe just tricky? Which of these square numbers 16,25,36,49 also are sums of two SMALLER square numbers which may lead to only think of numbers like 4 and 9. Not 4^2 or 3^2. 4^2 is a square number being squared and 3 is not a square number… it is just a number being squared. This is probably what threw most people off. At least for me and that’s why I believe the question was a little faulty tbh. That’s my opinion. Maybe the 16 being one of the answers threw me off tbh since I’m trying to think of a smaller square number than that one but it should be a smaller square number than the answer which is 25
Just relatively tricky, you can write 25 = 16 + 9, where 16 = 4^2 and 9 = 3^2, so 16 and 9 are square numbers, thus 25 is the sum of 2 smaller square numbers and therefore the wording is correct.
Neither. 9 and 16 are square numbers because their roots are integers. What their roots actually are is irrelevant as long as those are integers. Nothing wrong with the question.
@Broccoli_32 no, a square number and perfect square are the same thing (a square of an integer). A "squared number" would be the square of any number you want (integer, transcendental number or quaternion... doesn't matter).
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two “smaller” square numbers. Because a number cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot be derived from the sum of itself and 0. The only correct answer is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
These questions can be ambiguous at times but this one absolutely wasn't lol. "Which square numbers add up to another square number" is a pretty straightforward question
@LaughingStock55 The statement "nobody in the audience failed to be not absent when the contestant did not give the opposite of the incorrect answer" is very specific as well, but I am pretty sure that you wouldn't be able to interpret it in just a few seconds. And that is basically how a lot of people in here - including actual engineering students, myself included - feel when they read the question in this video for the first time: they are able to answer it, but they need time to interpret it correctly.
The question specifies that the answer must be the sum of two "smaller" square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot equal 16 + 0.
Why is everyone in the comments acting like that was a simple problem… I thought 16 too. I thought she meant √16 = 4 and √4 = 2 No other answer is like that she should’ve said what numbers can create a pothagorean theorem
@Ted Unguent he meant , most of the western dudes call Indians dumb ,of course it declined in the recent years , but living western country , I can tell you there is still that mentality in people
Ladies and gentlemen. We just seen how bad american education is; not because the gentleman didnt know the answer; but most people from audiance didnt know it as well.
Just because you thought that doesn't mean the question is badly worded. Mathematically speaking it's completely correct and precise. At no point it even mentions the square root of the possible answers.
Only if you remember what "square number" means. If you have forgotten that term, then this question will be confusing no matter how skilled you are at math.
He didn't have the advantage of pausing the video, so I give him credit for doing his best. It took me about 3 minutes to come up with the answer on my own. If I were him I would have probably used more lifelines. At the end of the day, you want to gain as much as you can even if you don't win a million. They need to bring this show back.
Yeah, it was a pretty weird question - I have been exposed to the Pythagorean Theorem in different forms for almost 30 years throughout my math career, and I still found this question kind of confusing.
“what number is the sum of two squared numbers” This could be any real number. In fact even complex number. In fact any number (probably). This includes all 4 answers obviously.
@mambda "Square number" is a kind of misleading name; personally I would have preferred if people stuck to the name "square integer", because this would emphasise the "integer" part. I guarantee that even math professors occasionally confuse "squared integer" and "square integer" with each other, because it would clearly be very easy to do that by accident.
@Peter Objectively you're completely correct. Since I was tought that term in like third grade (or rather the direct translation into my language) I never considered that.
0 likes
Big J2022-12-16 00:50:09 (edited 2023-01-02 03:15:14 )
To be fair, I the question is worded in a little bit of a tricky way.
I myself assumed that the smaller square numbers had to be the same (4 and 4 or 9 and 9) and didn’t realize they could be different until after she read the answer :/
You’re not reading the question correctly. A.) 16 couldn’t be an answer because the smallest numbers squared that get close to 16 are 2 and 3 squared which add up to 10 which doesn’t equal 16. B.) 25 is correct because 3 and 4 squared equal 25. C.) 36 isn’t right because the smallest squared numbers that get close to 36 are 3 and 5 squared which equals to 34 which doesn’t equal to 36 so it’s wrong. D.) 49 is wrong because the sum of 3 and 6 squared equals to 45 which doesn’t equal to 49 since they’re the smallest squared numbers to get to 49 it’s wrong.
@mambda nah. The question was worded weird I get that now that you know the answer you can act like it’s easy. But, I’ve got a degree in physics, well past 5th grade math and I can see the issue he was having
@Alexatedw Some people will say that even 11+17 is not a clear question, because they can't do it without a calculator. But it doesn't make the question unclear. As I see, you didn't explain what exactly was unclear. I wonder how else can you understand "a sum of two smaller square numbers". Unless maybe you don't know what a square is. (I guess maybe some forgot it)
Square numbers are integers by definition. Square numbers, i.e. perfect squares, are derived by squaring other integers. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 16, 25, 36, 49
The number 25 in this set is also the sum of two smaller square numbers 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 Ooooooh, so it's "add", not "multiply". I understood the question wrong. I think the vast majority of the audience did the same misunderstanding I did.
Yeah it's definitely not as easy for the average adult. If you were good at math growing up or use it on a semi to regular basis sure. But normal people who aren't human calculators will definitely get stumped by this question idc what any of you nerds say.
I guess I qualify as a "nerd", since I have a great passion for math, but I do have enough grasp of reality to realise that a lot of people have either forgotten a lot of math, or just haven't been interested in it and thus haven't invested any time in it, or maybe even have struggled with it and become frustrated by it - math is challenging, and some people will find it very challenging. But I am totally willing to teach people math whenever they ask for it; I actually find that very fun, and it is cool to see when they have those epiphany moments when they "get" something.
The wording of the question is very strange. I don't think the issue was his or the audience's ability to do the math. The issue was with the clarity of the question.
dO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO BOYS WHO WRITE MENS STORIES? "THEY ARE CELEBRATED" THATS NEVER A GOOD THING."HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT. i WROTE CELEBRATE IN A VERY SCARY FONT YESTERDAY.
No, a "squared" number would be the square of any number (integer, complex, surreal, ...). A "square" number however by definition is the square of an integer. In fact if it said "squared" any answer would be possible.
@mambda Let’s just agree to disagree that the question was stupidly worded hence why so many people got it wrong. They didn’t understand what the question was asking, the question could have included a formula to articulate it better. I’m not going to argue with a know it all though so I’m done after this message.
@Aaron Johansen "Let’s just agree to disagree" bold statement after you came into this discussion with ludicrous claims. Not to mention the fact that we didn't discuss whether the question is well articulated or not. Mathematically speaking it is completely correct.
@mambda I work with the Pythagorean Theorem all the time - in 3D space, as a variable denominator factor inside integrals - and I still felt a bit confused by the question in this video. So yes, it is kinda poorly worded.
@Peter How? I'm a non native english speaker who some basic calculus at uni. By the way I'm not suggesting the dude under pressure getting it wrong but over 70% of the audience?
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 16 and 0 because 16 cannot be smaller than itself.
The only answer that works is 25, which is 16 + 9.
Not really. A square number is defined as a the square of an integer. The "smaller" in the question excludes 0^2 + n^2 solutions. Only 3^2+4^2=25 remains.
I see a lot of stupid comments and video title itself is also stupid. If you put in his position and start doing mental calculations within the stress that is being live on tv, in front of many people I'd like to see if you could do it. I mean, the answer isn't that obvious and it takes some time to do mental calculations.
@mambda The audience didn't even had time to make the calculations to start with, they only had a few seconds, unless some already did previously. The decision to ask the audience was a very stupid decision too.
@FreedomWarrior I disagree. if 78% of the audience don't know the most common pythagorean triple then there's something wrong. Also why vote if you don't know the answer? I agree that asking the audience was dumb.
@mambda Most people aren't engineers, scientists or mathematicians or something related to readly know and recognize pythagorean theorem and it's safe to say that most don't even know, let alone recognize it.
@mambda There's another thing, the term "square number". You talk about Pythagoras but the vast majority of people don't even know what a square number is to start with.
After some simple math Its 25 The math: 16 + 9 = 25 16 is 4 to the power of 2 and 9 is 3 to the power of 2 Edit: im right, im impressed since im bad at math
A.) 16 couldn’t be an answer because the smallest numbers squared that get close to 16 are 2 and 3 squared which add up to 10 which doesn’t equal 16. B.) 25 is correct because 3 and 4 squared equal 25. C.) 36 isn’t right because the smallest squared numbers that get close to 36 are 3 and 5 squared which equals to 34 which doesn’t equal to 36 so it’s wrong. D.) 49 is wrong because the sum of 3 and 6 squared equals to 45 which doesn’t equal to 49 since they’re the smallest squared numbers to get to 49 it’s wrong.
It's a tricky question in the way it's worded. I got it wrong first too until you read that the sum of two square numbers, this mean two square numbers add to 25, so yes while 4x4 is made from two 2x2 and both square numbers added becomes 4+4=8 while if we take 3x3=9 and 4x4=16 gives 16+9=25. The way they use sum of two "smaller" square makes it sound weird asf 😂
A “square number” is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore the answer must be a whole number. The only answer that works is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 Technically, a "square number" should include all numbers, because π is a number, and π² is "π-squared" - so the definition of "square number" is kind of incomplete and unsatisfying.
Peter - With each additional comment you post, it becomes increasingly clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.
"Square number" has a very specific definition in mathematics. It is synonymous with "perfect square." I suggest you pick up a book on basic mathematics and review this concept. You may be studying engineering in college, but you lack some fundamental knowledge at the elementary level.
@Peter arguing definitions is pointless. It's not about how you think it should be defined but how it is defined. Feel free to create your own set of numbers that includes the square numbers of all real numbers. Good job, you just created the non-negative reals again. Very useful.
@Bajungasam that would work. I still don't see how the original wording is bad though. The first "square" - even if technically speaking not required - states that all the options will be square numbers. That and the rest of the question basically shouts Pythagoras.
@mambda idk i just don't like that they add something as useless as "also happen to be" making it feel like having the end result be a number that can be square rooted more important than it really is rather than just seeing it as a number that just so happens to be square rootable.
However, the answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, then the answer cannot be derived with the sum of 16 and 0.
it's an ambiguous question. 16 has two square numbers: 4, 4. they add to 8. now, 25 two squares: 5,5. add to 10. 36: 6, 6....add to 12. now, if the answer is 25: 5, 5. which sum to 10. none of the answers provided are correct. now, if you accept their answer, and add 4 + 9, you get 13! so clearly, the question is in error.
Look, this is a actualy hatd wuestion Stop saying sum Sum is evil What si sum? SAY TEH ACTUAL THING is it produkt? Vsota? Razlika? The answer of division?
@Peter thanks I literally like your comment yes in my math exam I can't even solve what is intergal of x² in 1 minute due to pressure I am an introvert And I can also relate that statement this happens with me everything 😔😥😀
@mambda This question isn't necessarily super-clear just because you have studied math. I have worked in detail with the Pythagorean Theorem as a minor part of much bigger actual university math problems for almost 5 years - and then another like 10-15 years before that - and I still found this question somewhat confusing, since it can easily be misinterpreted if you don't keep track of exactly what it is saying.
Also, my father has had a degree in Engineering Physics for like 35 years, and he felt confused for a few minutes by a relatively basic moment problem in physics when I asked him about it a few years ago, simply because he has focused on a career as a math teacher and thus hasn't worked specifically with physics problems for several years, so he was rusty on physics.
A lot of people in here have this smug attitude like "I studied math once and memorised it, so I am above all of these stupid people who aren't comfortable with math"; that attitude doesn't lead to anything good at all, and it only serves as a way for arrogant people to act superior. If they were actually concerned about people's math skills, then they would help people who struggled with math, and encourage them, not constantly mock them.
@Peter I personally have no issue with people getting it wrong / not understanding the question (especially the contestant while being under pressure, 70% of the audience getting it wrong is concerning though). What annoys me are the people which after misunderstanding the question claim that the question is wrong / poorly worded / etc. because that is simply not the case. I stand by my point that the question is clear. By that I don't mean that the question is intuitive.
@mambda "Clear" depends on whether you keep the exact definition of "square number" in mind or not. If you have forgotten that that name is defined as "the result of squaring an integer", then you will get lost in this problem no matter how good you are at math, because that one single "link in the chain" will be missing. It is also easy to get brain fog when you are nervous and feel a lot of pressure in the middle of a game show, so you will have to view this video from that perspective as well.
That question is worded so poorly, downright disingenuous. Had to pause and read that multiple times and realized that my answer of "16" was wrong because of the video I am on. I thought it asked which numbers which are square also have their square squarable. I.E. 4^2=16 and 4=2^2. Mostly because I've never hd anyone interested in aokething so bulshit. Who tf cares or benefits from this answer in real life. Fick math and bless that audience.
I am not denying that this question can easily feel confusing if you don't read it carefully - heck, I have studied math for several years, and I still hesitated a bit for a while.
That said though, math is very useful, and it is actually the foundation for our whole modern society. The question in this video is closely related to magnitudes, like for example the forces between charges that are at certain coordinates in space, or the speed of a projectile that travels at a certain horizontal and vertical speed. Also, GPS satellites require a high knowledge of physics, chemistry and electronics, and all of those topics are based on a lot of math. A simple water pipeline requires a lot of calculations in continuum mechanics in order to minimise the loss of friction through the pipes, and an aeroplane involves literally thousands of complex computer calculations where they try to optimise the design of the aeroplane wings, the required material, and so on.
Yes, math is frequently frustrating, and everyone struggles with it every now and then, but it is definitely extremely useful, and actually required for our modern society.
This is true, but that doesn't mean that the problem is poorly worded. If you understand the concept but not the question, then the question is poorly worded. If the problem is worded correctly and you don't get it, then you don't understand the concept.
The original commenter gave no indication as to why he believed the question is poorly worded. Because the question is not poorly worded, I can only conclude that he doesn't understand the concept.
It was worded fine but majority of the people just didn't read it correctly and voted for smallest square number instead of smallest addition of two squares. If this question had timer then there is a chance of making a mistake but that guy didn't think. Audience under limited time didn't read the question properly and got it wrong.
All of these comments are what’s wrong with society. You guys are like HEY I COUKD DO THAT but you weren’t there under all the pressure the guy was when the problem was asked. And also, he probably made the same mistake I did and thought the two smaller numbers had to be the same number. Learn to be more understanding and less judgmental of others. That’s how humanity advances. You guys are the problem, not him.
People are commenting that the question wasn't worded correctly. It was. It's just that the majority of people didn't care about math and left it at the school doorstep, or don't analyse the sentence to figure out what is being asked. I think the majority of the audience basically guessed, when they should have just not pressed a button at all. It must also be damned hard to think all of that through when you're the one sitting on that chair. Lots of pressure. Feel bad for the guy.
A "square number" is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Looking at this set, the only number in the set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
It's wild how easy this actually was to answer, not even in a snobby way. Just use one less number than the actual square root, so for A, you can use 3. 3^2 = 9 leaving A with 7, which isnt possible. C is 5^2 = 25 leaves you with 11, and D is 6^2 = 36 leaving you with 13. And ofc B, 25, is just 3^2 + 4^2. Different times I suppose but still, can't believe the audience answers LMAO
Which of these square numbers also happens to be THE SUM of two smaller square numbers? I'm Spanish 4+4=8 5²=25 25≠5²+5² I don't understand the question. This is a bullshit.
Couldn't we argue that 16 is also an correct answer, because 16, can be written as 4 squared plus 0 squared and if I understand correctly there is nothing preventing us from putting zero into solution?
Since I cant image that more than halft of the audience never went to school it is obvious to me that they just wanted to punish him for his lack of brainpower
From this comment section, I'm finding that math nerds are mean people. Yes, the math is simple, but does that look like a math formula to you? No. I've taken Calc 1,2,3, differential equations, and linear Algebra, and I still managed to think the question was asking for a squared number that's an addition of 2 squared numbers. It's a classic psychology trick that happened to be in the form of a math question where they make it look easy, so instead of rationally making an observation and deducting the answer, you see the answer (16) and justify it by thinking the sum of two squared numbers (2 and 2) equals the square of 16 (which is 4). Game shows do this all the time, Stop being @ssholes
@LaughingStock55 yeah, it's so odd, as an engineer who usually find the engineering solution (ie, funny formula or calculator online) I'm usually envious of people who easily and fully remember and understand math, but not this time
I have studied math at university for about 4 years, but I have never got the idea that I am somehow "better" than people with less exposure to math just because of that; in fact, it has made me eager to help people who find math difficult, and I am always willing to do that whenever someone asks me about it, since I find it genuinely fun. The people who mock those who have problems with math have self-confidence issues, and a superiority complex. Those people should be avoided, because they spread a toxic and harmful energy.
Question itself was an issue. It felt as we had only those four options. Anyways, if you are going to appear on that show you must have practiced at least that much to know about the question.
Anyone wondering the answer, it is 25. Question asked which of the given square is the sum of two smaller squares, and 25 = 9 + 16.
@LaughingStock55 No lmao, 2.25 is also a square number but not a perfect square, you may correct me if I'm wrong it may as well be that I mixed the term perfect square up with something else but the question doesn't say it has to be an integer square
I think the question is wrong because every no. in the option can be written as the sum of two square no. (✓8)²+(✓8)² = 16 (-✓18)² + (-✓18)² = 36 or more ways but the answer 25(b) is only correct when they ask for sum of square of two "positive integers"
Wow, people are dumb!!.. I can't believe half the audience thought it was A.. this wasn't even difficult... I mean come on!.. Just start at 1 and start squaring.. 1,4,9,16,25... you can stop there because 25 plus 25 is 50... now start adding them together... it's not 1 and 4, not 4 and 9, and there it is!!... 9 and 16.. took all of 30 seconds... sure I wasn't under pressure, but neither was the audience.. my god our educational system sucks!
You sound like a charming fellow. I bet people love to spend time with you as you chide them on their lack of knowledge. The ladies must flock to you like flies on dung.
1 like
Michael Ransom2023-02-10 17:02:39 (edited 2023-02-10 17:06:59 )
@LaughingStock55 In fairness, I deserved that. That was a callous and pejorative remark. It was intended to be a rebuke of a failed education system that's puts far too much emphasis on memorization as opposed to critical thinking, but it's true that I let my ego get the better of me and it only came across as narcissistic and demeaning... My apologies.
Wow. Reading the comments are brutal. Yall are forgetting a major variable. Time demand and pressure being on a TV show. Yall are running in here to try to passively say how smart you are. Most people learned Pythagoras theory. This question can easily be misinterpreted when you are rushing and assuming information. Funny part is, I bet if I was to follow your reddit post, most of you are introverted, have anxiety and scared of the public. Like get real.
Under pressure you can definitely get this wrong or misunderstand the question. However more than 70% of the audience getting this wrong is concerning.
I work with the Pythagorean Theorem all the time in 3D space during integral calculations, and I still found this problem slightly confusing. It is very easy to misinterpret this question, and a lot of math people in here agree about that.
Either the youtube audience is more educated than this man either the youtube audience has the privilege of not having to solve this problem under time and money pressure. Remember how intimidating this is for most people to solve a math problem when an entire class is looking at him/her, let alone all your familly, friends and millions of folks behind there TV.
Anyway, i always found it harder to solve math problems when it is not properly formalized. Natural langages are ambiguous and this simple question can be approach in many different ways wich would lead the most of us to loose some precious time / get it wrong. I think it explains why the audience was lost too.
Why should this question be asked at all in first place? Is it a maths competition? You really have to think hard if you're not into maths and I think one should not expect an immediate answer either.
Took me about 3 minutes to figure it out because the question was not worded well. Under the pressure of the show, I would have used the 50/50 and probably still missed it.
Technically, any of the answers was correct because they didn’t specify the numbers had to be integers (they could be Real numbers which include Rational and Irrational numbers). Eg: 16=3^2 + (SQRT(7))^2, 25=3^2 + 4^2, 36=5^2 + ((SQRT(11))^2, 49=6^2 + ((SQRT(13))^2, QED
@mambda "square number" is not a term regular folks are going to get. I'm not sure i have a better alternative, but i can totally see how the audience chose A. But maybe thats why its such a good game show question.
@e I'm not a native english speaker and thought "square number" is a very common term eg. when talking about Pythagoras. An alternative would be "perfect square". I don't know any other options than those two.
@O’Reagano no, then all answers would be correct. A square number by definition is the square of an integer. A "squared" number is the square of any number which would allow answers like 1^2 + (sqrt (15))^2 = 16.
Here was my thought process: 2 squared (Multiplied by itself) is 4. 4 squared (Multiplied by itself) is 16. If you have two 2's squared and added the SUM of them together which is what the question is asking, it equals 16. 25 is 2 DIFFERENT numbers which was purposefully not specified. In the end, 2 is just not a square integer so 16 can't be the answer, but it is correct if you take away the bullshit that is algebra.
"Purposely not specified"? There's no integer solutions for 2a^2=b^2 (a,b != 0) anyway.
The 3,4,5 Pythagorean Triple is super famous and by just going through the first square numbers you can solve this in seconds if you know what a "sum" is.
Everybody in this comment section: "What an utter fool for not solving polynomial equations in his head" Also everybody in this comment section during their last math exam: pulls out calculator and types in 3 + 2
The question is fine if you actually know what it’s talking about. It asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum if two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9
The audience was right 2.5^2 + 3.122498999199199^2 = 6.25 + 9.75 = 16. Or are we talking about natural numbers only? Well you forgot to specify that. But still 4^2 + 0^2 = 16. Oh, you meant natural non-zero, distinct, positive, sequential numbers?
"Square Number" has a specific definition in math and includes only whole numbers whose square roots are integers. In other words, square numbers are perfect squares.
@mambda The public schools are WAY overfunded. The administrations are top heavy and the student teacher ratio is getting ridiculously pampered but still the grades go down and down and the standards are lowered and still.. the grades go down and down. The only thing they still teach in grade school is the fluidity of gender and how to suck off your fellow non-binary classmate. Oh they also learn that Christianity, parents and America are all evil.
When I went to grade school the student teacher ratio was one teacher to 27-32 students and we learned a LOT. I learned a lot more in grade school than I ever learned the following six years.
Nope. Only 25 is correct. A “square number”, aka perfect square is found by squaring an integer. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The only number in the set above that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
They did not specify which number to be added while squaring so any and all no can make the answer thats why I said the question was itself flawed that is why all are possible answer
"Square number" has a specific definition in math, as I stated in my previous comment. Square numbers include only whole numbers whose square roots are integers. Therefore, you cannot just take the square of any number as you have suggested. Only the following qualify as square numbers:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, ...
The only correct choice in this video is 25, which is 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 that is what I am saying Math is a very simple language if u don't specify how u want the question answered there are thousands of way to answer the same question and they never specified which kind of number to use They just asked about the end goal is one of these number and square any 2 no. to get one of the option as answers
@LaughingStock55 tell me indevidual square of whole root32/2 + whole root18/2=? Does it not come to 25 too and did not break any rules of the asked question The same can be done for all the options
You are not understanding the definition of "Square Number." Either that or you are not paying attention to what I just wrote. I've listed square numbers for you twice and clearly explained why the only correct answer is 25. At this point it's your decision whether or not you actually want to know this stuff.
This question is wrong. Every rational number can be written as the sum of two smaller square numbers (as the question does not specify perfect squares only). Nevertheless, even if you consider them to be only perfect squares, every answer is correct; for example 16 = 0² + 4²
A "square number" is specifically defined as the square of an integer. Furthermore note the "smaller" in the question. This excludes answers like 0^2+4^2=16.
To all the math geniuses in the comments ...Most non math geniuses don't rely on games like this to earn money and most importantly wouldn't feel stupid from a question like this with zero perspective in daily life and if it does you wouldn't have to analize it that much! And if in one in a million someone pops it up so be it!!! We are more practical and logical beings!
So you think it's a normal thing if someone thinks the Earth is flat? I mean, why would you need to know this if it doesn't help in your job? You sound like a very one dimensional person. One doesn't need to be a math genius in order to know how to count. 10 years old children are able to do this.
@hopy51 Yes you can taunt me the player and the audience for failing the question! My comment was directed to the geniuses below who are doing the same thing as you . Obviously it's not just a matter of counting or a life fact about our planet. You cannot call people stupid based on their abilities of doing mathematics ! And mind you i come from a nation that gave birth to all this concepts and their names!! But it also made me appreciate logic and theory ( concepts also developed by people of my nation) more!!! Again I don't blame my mind for not being so beautiful...Used to do it as a teenager that caused me nothing but agony and stress and not leaving me appreciate my straight As of everything else..Unnecessary. We are all good at something.
@Stephen Steele The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Look at my previous comment for a list of the square numbers. 25 = 16 + 9
These are all square numbers, and 16 and 9 add to 25. You are trying to add the square root, which is not the same as the square.
This comment section is full of childish behaviour even though its a math video. Another thing is dude was probably under massive stress so it was that much harder to recall pythagores thorem from the pile of others mathematical theorems he've been taught before.
Actually all the numbers are the sum of two smaller square numbers. For example 16 is the sum of the squares of 2√2 and 2√2. Which are both numbers. Just saying
The comment section seems to lack any level of self-awareness. No shit you all can answer this because you most likely fall into 2 categories. 1. a kid who is still in school and is still taking math or 2. a person who works a job that uses math on a regular basis. You're not going to remember everything that was taught to you 20 years ago unless you are using it frequently.
@M-H 12 Uh no, square number is not used to file your taxes and you can do jobs that don't require squaring of numbers. I've not had a situation where I had to square numbers in 20 years (not since I took calculus).
The point is that if its easy, you fit into one of these two categories. Asking this type is like asking a 25-year-old do you still remember the first paragraph of the Gettysburg address that was taught to you in 6th grade.
@M-H 12 "we shouldn’t teach Arabic numerals." Nice assumption. It should really be referred to as Hindu-Arabic numeral systems since it was India that laid the foundation for number system.
I never said you shouldn't have a foundation? However, if you think most people use the Pythagorean theorem in their daily lives, then I doubt you've spoken to anyone outside of academia or the math/sciences about this.
@mambda And? You really think a lawyer uses algebraic theorems to win a court case? The average person only needs basic math to live a normal life, algebra is not basic math...
@0doublezero0 This isn’t Pythagoras theorem, this is simple multiplication. Multiplication which so happens to be of the same number. I doubt you have even taken calculus since what you say is blatantly nonsensical and you appear to not even know what square numbers are. You definitely use multiplication in your daily life, and square numbers is simple elementary math. In other words, you don’t meet square numbers once in a lesson, you meet them throughout your entire math education aswell as in your life. Making your past point of remembering some arbitrary information with no progression a terrible comparison. Also making your claim of not used in daily life wrong. So no, most people can answer this question because they aren’t idiots.
@M-H 12 "I doubt you have even taken calculus since what you say is blatantly nonsensical and you appear to not even know what square numbers are." Believe what you want, the fact I corrected you on your statement on Arabic numbers being Indian in origin shows I have more respect for the origin of things than you.
All you've done is put words in my mouth without really understanding anything I've stated. You should learn math as far as you can go. However, for most daily activities you don't need to have this level of understanding of math. A lawyer could go his entire life not being able square numbers and use the Pythagorean theorem.
Find 5 people over the age of 70 who are not in math or sciences and ask them this very question and prove me wrong. Good luck.
@mambda Let me clarify, you don't need to square things to live a normal life. Division, multiplication, Subtraction, and Addition are necessary. Yes, squaring is basic math but utilizing the Pathoregon theorem to solve that question above isn't. Its well beyond what you need in math to live as an English teacher. (if your going to be tell me basic math is basic algebra, you might as well tell all 6 graders their doing basic calculus since their learning algebra. All math builds upon itself all LMAO which is why I stated math majors would know this easily).
@mambda I'm going to take a stab and say you fall into one of these two categories I've mentioned, but don't want to admit it. So you know I'm right, so deal with it. lol
@0doublezero0 Corrected? Arabic numerals is the name for the current most common numerical digits. It’s a name, you buffoon. I don’t recall saying anything about origin. Ironic you say I put words in your mouth.
So what if a lawyer doesn’t “need to square numbers” aka not know multiplication? I don’t need to know how to write to do many jobs, in fact I don’t need to know how to use the toilet to do most professions even. Yet would you still say it is understandable and logical not to know? Now perhaps you realize how “need” means absolutely nothing. I don’t need to know how to use the toilet, yet it is pretty practical and expected, isn’t it?
I think it’s pretty telling if you count 6+6+6+6+6+6 instead of just 6*6, a person who doesn’t manage elementary grade math. So that brings me to the next point, would you hire that “lawyer” you talk about who doesn’t even manage the simplest elementary math? Most definitely not unless there aren’t other options.
Piss off with your demands. You made the claim that people don’t remember squaring numbers (multiplication with 2 numbers of the same value) if they haven’t done it in 20 years. You said it so it is your duty to prove it unless you want to appear more of a moron. Oh wait you can’t since almost every adult in the entirety of the world has used multiplication in the last 20 years. How unfortunate. Do you still not get it? Squaring numbers is just multiplication.
@M-H 12 "Piss off with your demands." Keep coping. You say most people can do this math yet only around 20% of the audience got it correct. I explained to you all why this happened, but your response is that they are not the norm. This is just pure cope. At the end of the day, I have more proof of my statement than you do of yours.
Yes, you can multiply two of the same numbers together and it would be the same as squaring it. However, I doubt you will have a situation where you are using said squares (exclusively) to solve for a problem (like this). Most of those people are around 10 years out of school on average, so its 100% reasonable why they got this wrong. Keep calling them morons if you like, but they are the norm. You can accept this or just be ignorant to the level of common knowledge the average person has outside of school.
Next you'll tell me squaring imaginary numbers is something the average 30-year-old English teacher should know...
A third category includes those who like trivia and remember this pointless stuff just to feel smart. Otherwise we are just sad little people who are insecure about our self image. Take that rude little gremlin who trolled you. How good can his life really be if the only important thing going on for him is winning arguments on random YouTube videos?
@0doublezero0 The question isn’t 6*6, which is what you’re saying most people don’t know. Are you denying most adults can’t calculate that? No? Then people know square numbers. It doesn’t matter if you haven’t come across a question like this in 20 years. As long as you know multiplication and addition. You can solve it. 3*3 + 4*4 = 25, and that math you think most adults don’t know according to your comment. Why did people get it wrong? Because they didn’t think. They guessed. They didn’t bother adding square numbers until they got a match. That is the reason the question is “difficult”. So, when are you going to prove adults don’t know 6*6? A square number, the topic which you said most adults have forgotten?
This is a horrendous question. 16 is equal to the sum of the square root of 8 squared plus the square root of 8 squared. All of the answers could be sums of square numbers.
This is a horrendous comment. sqrt(8) is a irrational number making 8 not a perfect square. None of the answers except for 25 are sums of two smaller square numbers.
@LaughingStock55The question is wrongly formulated from the point where it mentions that "square numbers" are also the sum of two "squared numbers". I want to refer to the redundancy of the first data and also the fact that the question doesn't say "squared" it says "square".
@alguien lolco if it said "squared" instead of "square" in the second instance all answers would be correct. A square number is defined as the square of an integer. A "squared" number could refer to any number. The first "square" is not necessary, however makes the question easier since you don't have to verify that the listed answers are all in fact square numbers. So no. The question is formulated well.
Reread the question. The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Yes, 0 + 16 = 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself. Therefore, 16 cannot be the answer.
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot be derived using the sum of 16 and 0.
Yes, LaughingStock55 has nailed it. But additionally, your reasoning Supersonic leads you to every one of the answers being correct. 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7 each +0
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. A square number is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9. The answer cannot be the sum of itself and 0 because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
@LaughingStock55 The question was ambiguous and didn't mention 'perfect squares', so technically all of four answers were right in the world complex numbers.
Goofy aah question. Y'all really on a high horse for knowing square numbers when they're rarely referred to in everyday life. Unless you're in a math-related career, you hardly use math
@mambda How often are you going to be painting a room or even measuring it lol. I can just brush it up on Google. AND if you can't paint a room without measuring it, that's comical
@Stories read aloud the 3,4,5 Pythagorean Triple is very famous. Also the wording is very precise and not confusing at all if you know what "sum" and "squares" means. I can see how this might be confusing for non native english speakers but for native speakers who passed the 4th grade this should be very easy.
People in the comments are over exaggerating. It was worded very confusing and had nothing to do with math skills. I would’ve got it wrong just because I didn’t understand the question and would’ve needed to see an example of what they meant
The question isn't worded confusingly, quite the opposite. Anyway, the dude not understanding under pressure is no problem. The real issue is 72% of the audience getting it wrong. That's just pathetic.
Nobody caught that there are two specially-named powers: "to the second power" is generally pronounced or written as "squared", therefore the semantics of the question at hand is incorrectly spelled. It should have read "squared". The show owes our contestant $16,000.00 plus 18% per year interest for 15 years but probably the show is out of business due to bad semantics.
Okay let’s see if this helps you understand the concept of square numbers.
Take the integers 0 through 7. A square number a.k.a. perfect square is found by squaring an integer. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
You are confusing the term “square number” with “squared number.” A square number must be an integer by definition, whereas you can square any number you want.
It’s okay. Since he doesn’t know math, he doesn’t know how much money was lost
52501 likesReplies (409)
I'm good at math yet this one stumped me for a while.
795 likesIt's wordplay math for little children.
@RaniaIsAwesome It's not wordplay.
884 likes@RaniaIsAwesome it’s not wordplay lmao, pretty simple
726 likesWho are you,so smart in the way of science.
103 likes@RaniaIsAwesome this is simple af..dumbass
142 likes@RaniaIsAwesome bro I’m in year 8 I found it out instantly lmao
262 likes@FA Right, you're a child.
34 likesOf course. He thinks he only lost $15.000
122 likes😂🤣😂🤣😂
17 likes@Alfred Einstein ???
8 likes@Alfred Einstein ok
6 likes@RaniaIsAwesome wordplay's hard dude
5 likesTheFireLegendGamerPro I love how Saying Lul translates it to asshole lmao
2 likes@RaniaIsAwesome bro its literally pythagoras theorem
91 likes@Smol Boye its pythagoras theorem think
26 likes👍🏻
4 likeslel
2 likeslmao
2 likes@Bionium It’s called the Pythagorean Theorem and it doesn’t help here. The Pythagorean Theorem states a^2 + b^2 = c^2. In this case we do know c is one of four choices, but the question isn’t asking for the sum squared of two squares, just the plain sum. Close but not it. This question is solve for c (given c= 16 || 36 || 25 || 49) using the formula a^2 + b^2 = c.
50 likes@Honyopenyoko you can def use the Pythagorean theorem here. using a^2+b^2=c^2, set c^2 = 25. you can decompose 25 into 2 very easy square numbers, 16 (4^2) and 9(3^2), in other words 4^2+3^2=c^2=25. kindergarten choice completed 👍
57 likesHoly shit I made this comment get 3k likes
6 likes3,4,5 is the simplest, most easy to recognise Pythagorean triad; there’s no wordplay going on here lol
54 likes@RaniaIsAwesome heard of something like pythagores theorem.
6 likesIt's the 3, 4 and 5 pythagore theoreme
6 likes@Judis Jeevan Not everyone is a math mathematician like you dubmass. I had no idea what the answer was, some ppl just have trouble with math, quite rude of you to assume that everyone should know this.
24 likesit was somewhere between 11 and Graham's Number
10 likesIt's a dāmn simple math question.
36 likesThe very first example (legit) of a simple Pythagoras Theorem is :
3² + 4² = 5²
9 + 16 = 25
🤣😂😅😆
2 likes@RaniaIsAwesome 25 which is a perfect square and it is the sum of two perfect squares; 16 and 9.
5 likes3 x 3 = 9
4 x 4 = 16
5 x 5 = 25
(3^2) + (4^2) = 5^2
Its pretty simple. The person didn't know basic math but thats ok- its never too late to learn!
the best comment
4 likes@RaniaIsAwesome I'm not a native english speaker, I thought it would be what square number, 16 sqr = 4, is also the sum of two sqr roots, 2² = 4
19 likesLol
1 likeThis is the winner of the best comment award.
7 likesstill quite a lot of money lost tho
3 likesthat was quite a harsh statement, I suppose.
5 likesBoekster this is square root not basic math dumbass
1 like@kabib relax you can solve math problems but struggle to solve your problem on how to get a woman to talk to you. L
4 likes@Smol Boye it was wordplay also the sum of 2 square roots
4 likes@El Majraz the question wasn’t clear about it using the pythagoream theorem at all wtf is the sum of 2 square roots supposed to entirely mean before knowing
4 likes@Ryan It is not wordplay. The question unambiguously and directly asks for a perfect square that can be decomposed into two smaller perfect squares by summation. I'm literally a math major and if this is wordplay then you're a bowl of chicken soup.
28 likes@Ryan This question should be clearly defined for all English speakers who paid attention beyond the sixth grade. Why is everyone here freaking out? The term "square number" is something everyone who at least speaks English should understand
27 likes@Ryan if you know Pythagorean triads, which are taught in elementary school, this question is a breeze
9 likes@Ryan there is no word play, the question is very clear and direct. Also, where are you even getting square root from? The question is about perfect square numbers. If it was about the sum of two square roots, every single positive number would be a valid answer, as they are all square roots of their own squares.
14 likes@Patrick Martin dumbass... That's the least you need to know, bare minimum
4 likes@Thommy aVV that's wrong as well because 16 isn't 4+4
2 likes@Ryan you sound like a normie when it comes to maths. Pythagorean Theorem was just the most basic example, it's not even rocket science, it's basic maths. The education system failed you
10 likes@I'm a Doge You must have replied to the wrong person, I didn't write that
1 like@I'm a Doge I'm not the dumbass who has a freaking dog as their profile pic and assumes everyone knows how to do every type of math their is, Merry freaking Christmas to you too
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome its not wordplay, it's the most basic Pythagorean triple
3 likes@Patrick Martin bro this is literally always taught in high schools and even if you forgot the answer (which is quite rare), you can still use trial and error and just add random squares to see if they add up to squares.
7 likes@Tsar Alexander I What if I never learned how to do square roots? Sure I can press the square root button on my calculator, but I obviously wouldn't have that option in this case. I've come to realize that a lot of ppl think that everyone learned the same things in high school, but that's just not the case, I was never taught this in school whatsoever.
4 likes@Patrick Martin everyone should know this? You’re either really young or didn’t pay attention in basic math class
16 likes@RaniaIsAwesome It's Pythagorean Triplet u Mongol.
1 like@lolblitz gaming Try being in special education
2 likes@Mohd. Bailey I have never heard of that before.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome you must google about pythagorean triplet of 3,4,5. It's quite easy, u gray alien.
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome you're not good at math if you found this question hard. it literally took me 5 seconds to figure out.
10 likes@Unbreakable Pickaxe I never said I found this question hard.
1 like@Patrick Martin if you didn't learn this in school, either you didn't pay attention or the school was really behind. My country is far behind in terms of education and we still learned it. Also, you don't need to know square roots, you just need to know the first few squares and just add them as trial and error
9 likes@Tsar Alexander I you obviously sir don't know how to read, they didn't even teach us this in school because I was in special education
3 likes@Patrick Martin well if you don't know square numbers, you are obviously one of the very few. I'm just letting you know that almost everyone should know square numbers by adulthood. Even if you are not good at math, the first few squares can simply be memorized and require little math. This is no exception to the man in the video and even if he was bad at math, he should have revised at least a bit of math before entering the TV show.
10 likes@RaniaIsAwesome well not good enough for the pythagorean theorem, apparently
2 likes@Ryan That's very sweet ryan, now go down for dinner.
1 like@zafuro bruh ofc the anime pfp loser says that lmao
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome
0 likesExactly right👍
😂😂😂
0 likes🤣
0 likes@Honyopenyoko it cleary says which of these SQUARE numbers happens to be the sum of SQUARES of two smaller numbers. That's the Pythagoras theorem. Are you dumb
0 likes@Ryan where it is written sum of two square ROOTS? it's clearly written sum of two square numbers you fool
5 likes@Patrick Martin why are you calculating square roots here.
5 likesHoly shit this comment section is mentally challenged
6 likes@Deleralia what?
2 likesLolll
1 likeSavage as f***
3 likes@RaniaIsAwesome lmao you contradicted yourself
2 likesBut this historical event will actually haunt him later in his life .. probably. 😉
2 likesDo you really care about him? Most people in the audience don't know math. Isn't this disturbing af?
8 likes@Patrick Martin well you should be able to add 9, 16 easily. I mean I just assumed that people can easily add two numbers and when they are less than 100, it should be much easier than that.
4 likesAnyways, since you can't add them, imagine if you bought something worth 25 dollars and gave 30 dollars, but they gave you 1 dollar as change and you took it.
See, you would be losing everything with not knowing basic things like addition like these and so I agree with the other person saying it's bare minimum. Anyways you prolly lost thousands of cash till now cuz you don't know how to add I guess, which also requires very less intelligence btw.
@Tsar Alexander I wtf you mean by memorising, it's simple addition bruh. Like I could have easily figured this out when I was literally 4 or 5, but by the little computation power my brain had at that time.
5 likesAnyways, being able to calculate things fast doesn't mean much, but this is very very very basic and simple for a human being and should be.
@random person um, I'm assuming that square roots aren't as simple as just adding, I can add no problem, but this seems to be much more complicated than that.
1 like@Patrick Martin and why do you need the square roots in the first place?
5 likes@random person i just said if you can't figure out the squares, you can just memorise it, since the person i was arguing kept saying that he is bad at math/he never learned it, etc...
2 likes@random person i was also very curious why he kept saying square roots when the question doesn't require it
2 likes@Tsar Alexander I yea you are right, at first I just thought these people are trolling maybe but doesn't look like that now.
2 likes@RaniaIsAwesome This is not wordplay.
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome yeah if it was under 5 or maybe even 10 seconds I might've failed. Takes time to process. But getting a full minute? or even 2? anybody should be able to figure that out
2 likesHaha
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome 16 + 9 is 25
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome oh lol. This took me around 2-5 minutes so the audience would just have to sit there patiently watching me think xD.
0 likeslmao
2 likes@RaniaIsAwesome then you are just as clueless, no way you are "good at math".
1 likeYou're a bad guy man 😂😂😂
1 likeLol
2 likes@Thommy aVV He replied to the right person. You wrote: "16 sqr = 4, is also the sum of two sqr roots, 2² = 4". A sum is the result of adding numbers. The result of multiplying numbers is called product. So your statement was incorrect.
1 like@Honyopenyoko she said sum of two squares which make a square
0 likes@ThereIsNoSpoon oh shit, that I didn't know, as I'm not a native English speaker, thanks for letting me know
1 like@Thommy aVV I assume you're norwegian; it's the same in norwegian: multiplikasjon => produkt, addisjon => sum, divisjon => kvotient, subtraksjon => differanse. In english: multiplication => product, addition => sum, division => quotient, subtraction => difference
2 likes@zeu xlaught I have a 99 percentile, I always got the highest grade in exams and you have no clue about math or what you are talking about.
0 likes@zeu xlaught And don't reply to me again, I am sick of getting notifications from stupid children on this comment section.
0 likes😂😂😂😂😂
0 likes@FA damn kid you’re ego is also so high lower it down a bit will ya?
0 likes@Judis Jeevan lmao adshole lol
0 likes@Smol Boye shut up
0 likesBig bren
0 likes@Israel Country Cube no? I didn't say anything incorrect or offensive to anyone but your pea-brain
1 likebruh why do people who are good at math always have to act like they’re above everyone else?🙄🥱
8 likesjust because you’re not good at math it doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
Stop acting like that it’s embarrassing. Makes it seem like you don’t have any other qualities.
@Mrs Fahrenheit its not that u are bad at maths then u are bad... U are already good and nice enough for urself
2 likes@RaniaIsAwesome you aren’t good at math if this one stumped you. You might be good at addition and subtraction
4 likes@Bionium thanks for explaining it further. As a carpenter that is what jumped out at me when 25 was an option
3 likes@Honyopenyoko way to overthink the problem dude. The question was “which ONE…” so there is no great formula to look for here. Just an everyday use of the Pythagorean formula that I use as a carpenter gave me the answer in seconds while you were doing all your calculations on paper. Duh
3 likes@Ryan the fact that 50% of the audience is math illiterate is no excuse. No wonder there are automated cashiers going up everywhere
5 likes🤣🤣🤣
0 likesLol
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome no wordplay there dude
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome bruh, what?
1 like@kabib u must be joking no way this was simple
0 likesYou make a career of being a Nazi?
0 likesunless he looked at the number of likes on this comment -1k lol
0 likes@Bionium wtf how is this question pythagaros theorem
1 likeThere were 123 comments
1 like@Niranx _YT it's not exactly that this question is solved by Pythagoras' theorem, this is a simple addition question. It's just that you can solve it even faster if you know Pythagorean triples, and this question was about the most well-known of them (3, 4, 5), and almost everyone learns this one as an example when learning the theorem (and is used a lot in questions about it), so they are usually associated.
2 likesWrong answer but that sounds means it's the daily double. Two times fifteen thousand is one thousand. Congratulations. 🤪
1 like@Bionium literally it's not and you couldn't even spell it right on both tries
0 likes@Smol Boye you just admitted you are a math major dumb fuck. Good for you. You will literally never need this in real life to have to answer a question like this. It was written in a problem solving format as well. Audience also didn't know it. I didn't know it. Doesn't make you stupid. Some if the smartest and most successful people wouldn't know the answer to this yet here you are acting all tough Bec u know the answer to a math question that was in a problem solving format
1 like@木原篤郎 I thought pythagoras was related to triangles and you use it to find the hypotenuse of the triangle
1 like@裝石仔 J Stone have you ever heard of sarcasm
1 like@Zachary Jeez dude I'm a math major because I like math. The only reason I mentioned it is because some people were saying that this question was not a math question but instead was wordplay, which is not true. Also, how is 'admitting' to being a math major embarrassing? The starter salaries for recent graduates are well above average, and just go up for those who pursue a masters or greater.
3 likesPythagorean triples come up all the time in "real life"; that is, you don't need to be a math major (scoff!) to have use for the answer to this question. For just one example, it is common knowledge that to make sure that a frame is square, you can simply measure '3,4,5' around each corner and check to see that they create right triangles. If the skilled trades aren't considered useful to you, how about you build your own house and see how well you do.
I never said that people who didn't understand this question were stupid, just that they should know the answer. There are plenty of factors that can contribute to someone not knowing the answer--the american education system in particular comes to mind.
Please stop getting offended over other people who aren't even talking to or about you.
@Smol Boye I never said anything about it being embarrassing that you are a math major
0 likes@Zachary "You just admitted you are a math major dumb fuck"
0 likesThat was you. You said that.
@Smol Boye correct. But never said it's embarrassing that you are a math major. The dumb fuck was to acting like "even you" know the answer. But you are a major so it's more likely you would know it than a random person who hates math and tries to avoid it at all costs. Nothing about embarrassing to be a math major like you claimed I said
0 likes@Zachary I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. But I never was of the mindset that "even I" know the answer. My point is that this is part of the basic mathematics curriculum in nearly every country, so anyone who is
2 likesa) an english speaker
b) at the appropriate grade level (6th grade-ish depending on the region) or above in school
should know the answer to this question. Reiterating my previous comment: this does not mean people who don't know the answer are stupid, just that some factor has come in to play that has prevented them from having this knowledge which they should have.
Therefore my stance is that this question is reasonable for a game show meant to test the knowledge of its contestants. I don't believe I'm being unreasonable.
@Smol Boye I never said it was unreasonable. In fact, they could have asked a question that never was in the curriculum in the education system altogether even at the college level. It's a game show and they can ask whatever they want.
1 likeBut math is a subject where either you get it or you don't. Then there's math examples written in a problem solving format which confuses people more especially people who struggle with math. Also, in general, square root is a more challenging area than other plain simple equations. So a person who struggled with math could very easily either forget this, or struggled with it just enough to pass it at the time of learning.
I will say this. I didn't even know where to begin when reading the question. I get anxiety looking at numbers and trying to figure out the answer. Some call it mathlexia, but idk about that. I can't think right when looking at a math example.
But when I saw commenters commenting the answer and how they got there, I would have been able to get the answer on my own if I was explained in simple terms what they were asking for in the question. I graduated college about 10 years ago and don't remember seeing a question like this in my life
@Zachary I understand. I'm sorry that math is a negative thing for you--I admit I'm very biased when I think of other peoples' interest in math.
0 likesThat said, where are we even disagreeing?
It's a question that is reasonable for a game show.
It's a well defined question (as in there is only one right answer).
It's a question that can be answered even from first principles (everyone could solve it given the basic information of what squares are and what summation is).
The wording--in my view--is unable to be simplified in any real sense. Rewording it for your understanding may very well obscure meaning for someone else.
With this in mind, I am struggling to see how my comments warranted the 'dumb fuck' moniker.
@Smol Boye well, your entire initial comment was degrading anyone who didn't know how to answer the questions calling it a absolutely easy at a ln elementary school level then saying you're a math major. Like you mentioned, you are biased towards others not in your major. But I assure you a history of science major can answer a 6th grade question that you couldn't.
3 likesSo to bask and belittle others who don't know something you do, is actually very insulting. I wanted to comment my thought on the post and after reading through some comments, I said I don't want to read anymore from people on a high horse not thinking about others and chose you because you said what you said in a very degrading way and then went on to say you're a math major which contradicts your entire point because if anyone would know the answer to a math question, it's a math major, and yet you don't think about what others may find as their weakness or strength
@Niranx _YT yes, and it's most common form is a² + b² = c², which is exactly the question asked here. A Pythagorean triple is a group of three positive integers (so that excludes fractions) that follow the formula. The most known example is (3, 4, 5), another is (5, 12, 13). As I said, this is an easy addition question, you don’t really need to know the Pythagorean theorem or triples to solve it, but knowing them makes you solve it even faster.
1 like@Zachary I mean, I am not a math major, and this really is an elementary school level question. Unless my school was really above average
0 likes@木原篤郎 if you only read 1 sentence of my comment, then go F off and read the actual full comments then delete this one so you don't look like a clown
1 like@Zachary No, my first comments were
3 likes1) "@RaniaIsAwesome It's not wordplay."
2) "It is not wordplay. The question unambiguously and directly asks for a perfect square that can be decomposed into two smaller perfect squares by summation. I'm literally a math major and if this is wordplay then you're a bowl of chicken soup."
3) "This question should be clearly defined for all English speakers who paid attention beyond the sixth grade. Why is everyone here freaking out? The term "square number" is something everyone who at least speaks English should understand"
Where did I call it easy? I said the question should be clearly defined for those paid attention beyond the sixth grade (as in you know what is being asked, not necessarily the answer), and contested the statements of others who said this question was wordplay. I stand by both of those sentiments. I'm sorry but saying someone should remember what a square number is != calling them stupid no matter how you try to spin it.
(Note that I brought up my major because it's relevant to my opinion on whether something is a 'real math problem' or not)
Responding to my comment because you found it insulting is fine. I'm even glad that I get to talk to someone who has (for the most part) been respectful. But given that your first sentence of response called me a 'dumb fuck' kind of invalidates your 'high horse' argument.
@Smol Boye #3. That's where. Comparing knowing this to speaking English infers that it's that simple and anyone who doesn't know this answer and DOES speak English, is dumb. It's how it sounds and how I understood it.
0 likesAnd I didn't say it was wordplay but a problem solving format and some people get confused in problem solving and would rather have the equation straight forward.
Those who are not good at math find it more difficult to to solve math problems when it's mixed with in a worded question which is problem solving .
@Zachary I've already explained my use of "should". I don't use it to insult anyone, just like saying "everyone should eat healthy" is not an insult to those who don't (nor is it insinuating that those who don't are not healthy themselves). Perhaps you're reading too much into my comment.
1 likeAlso, this gameshow (to my knowledge) exclusively presents problems in word format, so anyone going on the show is presumed proficient.
@Smol Boye this isn't about the game show ffs do you not understand what you wrote? You said anyone who speaks English should know how to solve this equation... Your example about eating healthy is dumb as it is not all else equal. It's not about knowing how to eat healthy but having the right mentality to eat healthy.
0 likesWhat you said is like saying that someone who is a plumber should know how to di electric work in a house. That insinuates that he's not a good plumber or that he's dumb or lazy because
"of course he should be able to do electric work; after all, he's a plumber!"
English has nothing to do with knowing math. One could flunk math but be a genius in everything else. In fact, I could ask you a history of science question that is "6th grade level" and I guarantee you wouldn't know it. How would you respond if I made the same comment to you about if you know English, than you should know that history question. It's demeaning and insulting and if you are too slow to understand the way you said it was very aggressive and ignorant, I cannot help you.
Don't forget are you smarter than a 5th grader show stumped most of the country and yet majority of those people who got wrong answers are very sucessdul in their life and. Sure they can stump you in a field that they "majored in"
@Zachary I never said that everyone who speaks English should be able to solve the question, just that they should know what the question is asking. Read my comments again, slowly. "Clearly defined" means that the intent and parameters of the question are direct and unambiguous. You'll see that I have mentioned this multiple times in my responses to you, but you have failed to change your false representation of my comments.
2 likesI'm also curious about what your question is now, obviously you won't be able to trust my answer because google exists but for my own curiosity I'd love it if you gave me the question.
@Smol Boye well, I just went back and you did not say that they should know what the question is asking.
0 likes2nd of all, I didn't say I have a question in mind to ask. I said I'm sure there are numerous 6th grade questions I could ask you not math related and you wouldn't know.
I'm not going to go and look for a question to ask you. Because I don't know you and you could be a really smart person and it will go through doze a of 6th grade history questions until I could stump you. .y point would still be valid, but it's really not necessary and a waste if time. The same way you could ask me many 6th grade level questions and I would know majority of them. You said this is a 6th grade question. I don't remember learning square root in 6th grade, but I can tell you I never grasped square root equations, so right here is a question that stumped me mainly because I didn't know where to begin. And I'm sure if someone broke it down for me to understand it differently, I would have solved it as I mentioned earlier. I am kinda slow when it comes to math.
@Zachary In my initial comments, I said that the question "should be clearly defined" for those that speak English. My intent, and indeed the actual meaning of that statement, is not that the question is easy to solve, but that it was CLEAR in what it was asking. I said this in response to those who claimed it was wordplay or that it was a 'stupid question'.
5 likesLots of difficult, even unsolvable questions are clearly defined--ESPECIALLY in math. There are hundreds of unsolved conjectures, a significant portion of which are questions that almost anybody can understand but nobody has solved. Don't mistake me saying that the question is 'clearly defined' for me saying that people who can't solve it are stupid. That's not the case. My Dad can't solve this question! Now obviously given that he was taught this, it would be expected of him to know the answer, but by no means does that make him stupid.
@Patrick Martin well it’s simple math so..
0 likes@Uajrh1 Apparently no one ever told me that square roots were basically the answers to multiplication problems, so the square root of 4 is 2
1 like@Patrick Martin that’s 6th grade stuff..
0 likes@Uajrh1 How many times do I have to tell people. I WAS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION, THEY NEVER TAUGHT US THIS!!!!!
5 likes@Patrick Martin I thought they would’ve taught you basic math..
2 likes2022 best reply
2 likes🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@Uajrh1 Apparently they didn't
1 likeI'm not a native English speaker and I wasn't a 100% sure what a square number meant but my suspicions were right and after that I got it pretty quick.
2 likesLMAOOOO
0 likes@Patrick Martin You’re literally 11
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome If you found this challenging, you’re not good at maths
1 like@Turd Ferguson I mean...he did
0 likes@Honyopenyoko smartass
0 likes@Shumbabala nerd
0 likes@El Majraz smartass
0 likesLMFAO
0 likes@Harv Nope 31. And this is why the internet sucks because of bullies
1 like@Patrick Martin I see you mentioned you may have had special education and I also don't know your age, so maybe this doesn't apply for you: while everyone is talking about Pythagoras and such, the truth is that you don't need to be aware of that to answer the question. It only requires knowledge of multiplication tables (and limited further to squares) and simple addition, both of which are taught in elementary school. The average adult should be capable of using that level of math. This is of course ignoring the factors of being nervous in front of an audience and choking under pressure. The audience doesn't really have those excuses though.
2 likes@Keven Vaughn I really only learned addition, subtraction, some multiplication, a bit of division, and how to tell time in elementary school. I never learned how to measure, in middle school I learned fractions, probably basic algebra, in high school was when I learned PEMDAS, learned how to do fraction problems, that's basically it, never learned square roots, never learned the pythagorean theorem. I'm kind of realizing that I graduated from high school but never really learned stuff that most ppl know when it comes to math.
2 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome it was pretty simple
0 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@Ios ok but did you ever play chess? Sometimes great players have made awful blunders, especially when caught for time and with pressure on, and yeah it looks obvious in retrospect. That is the only thing I wanted to say.
0 likes@Shumbabala I've never heard of that theory in my life, not even during college. So this is news to me! But hey, it's fine, the more you know.
1 likeMy god everyone trying to be a math god in this comment section when all you need to do is think and list all square numbers less than 49 (as it is the biggest number in the choices meaning we'll get 4,9,16,25,36) now just do simple addition of two numbers out of the list hence we'll get 4+9, 4+16, 4+25, 4+36, 9+16 and so on
2 likesLoL I even saw some using terms like Pythagorean theorem wtf?
@Niranx _YT ever heard of a Pythagorean triplet? this is related to pythagorean theorem
0 likes@Niranx _YT 4 square plus 3 square is 25
0 likes@Zachary tell me its not related to pythagorean triplet 25 is an example well known in maths 4 ^2+3^2 is 25
0 likesif you were familiar with maths it will be easier
@Upright Fossil thanks bud atleast you understood me
1 like@Zachary check for once in the net and reply to me if you dont beleive me LOL
0 likes@Bionium nope that isn't in my school course for my current year so don't know
0 likes@Bionium I believe 75% of the audience had it wrong also. That means we should not expect “smart” answers here either. Enjoy your life and try to only be around people smarter than you who do not think they are smarter than everyone. Worked for me.
1 likeLmfaao
0 likes@Niranx _YT oh np bruh but its in schools
0 likeshave a great day
@Mrs Fahrenheit Exactly lol
0 likes@Zachary Good point 👍
0 likes@Zachary Lmaooo
0 likes@Harv Yeah, let's judge someone on the internet because they didn't know something.. Sounds fun right! Quit being a smart-ass wannabe
0 likes@Harv Also, the guy in the video didn't answer the question right and he doesn't look like 11 to me, so what's your point? Dumb
0 likes@ShadowGuy said like a dumbass, you would’ve been the in majority of the audience that got it wrong, also in your videos you look around 11, STFU kid YouTube kids exists for a reason
0 likesThis man needs a break
0 likes@Ryan
1 likeYou don't have to know about that theorem. You can just try to add up smaller square numbers together for each option and find the answer. I did it this way without even realizing that pythagorean theorem existed lol
@Arvie Talaugon
3 likesThat's what I'm saying!!! Bringing up pythagorean theorem made it look even more complicated lol. Not everyone remembers math theorems... I even forgot about pythagorean theorem's existance
@someone theorems postulates and other rules in math shouldn't be memorized using your brain, it should always be by heart like how addition and subtraction was etched into your soul back when you are a kid.
1 likeBut yeah people who uses terms not normally used in public places are just show offs and just shows that they've just learned about it few hrs ago after searching for it so just laugh at them trying so hard to get recognized ;)
🤣🤣🤣 too good of a comment not to like
0 likes@Alfred Einstein 🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@Ivan 😂 I commented this almost a year ago and it’s blowing up.
0 likes@Adhucja I was confused as well😅
0 likeslmaooo
0 likeshttps://youtu.be/EgptHJ6by2o
0 likesLol
0 likes@Patrick Martin I read your comment as "Not everyone is as smart as you, dummy. It's so dumb that you're smart and expect people not to be dumb. So you're dumb. Take that. It's so rude that you say mean things like that people should know how to multiply numbers up to 5x5 and add numbers such as 16 and 9... How can someone possibly expect another human to remember so much information that amounts to just a couple bytes on a computer?"
0 likesDo you hear how whiny you sound? Really, this question could have been solved by anyone who decided to memorize square numbers from 1^2 to 5^2. The fact that so many people think this is hard is only a testament to the joint failures of the American education system and the American attitude.
@FA LMFAO IM IN GRADE 7 AND I FOUND THIS TOO HOW DOES THIS MAN NOT KNOW WHAT A SQUARE IS THEY TEACH THIS IN GRADE 6
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome No you're not, lmao. I suck at math, still I figured it out instantly.
1 like@Anime Fan probably someone who passed middle school maths class
0 likesI hate math in form of a word riddle. I'm dyslectic. If the would say a2+b2=25 what is a and b in positive integers.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome Good at Math? Bet you mean pre-school level 🤣
1 like@YTY No, advanced math that you wouldn't understand.
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome You don't need to talk about 'advanced math' when you think Pythagoras' theorem is complicated lol 😂
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome Also, I love how people tell me about 'advanced' Math/CS when they literally aren't expert in any of these (As someone who pursues in these pathes I can tell you're neither 'advanced' nor expert in Math)
0 likes@YTY If that's what you feel like believing go ahead. Stop wasting both our times.
1 likeIf you use Alden’s number the answer Is clear
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome lol sure (and you're the one posting that comment 🤣)
0 likes@YTY Are you a small child or something? You at least haven't graduated university yet am I right? You are not speaking like an adult. Please get a life and stop trolling others.
1 likeThe crowd doesn't know math either. Lol.
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome your terrible at maths then lol
0 likes@Santi04 If only you knew how wrong you were.
0 likes@Santi04 Advanced maths doesn't work like that, it's not silly games.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome dude no offense but adding together square numbers is elementary stuff. If you've ever done pythagoras theorem, which you literally do at like age 13, you would know the 3-4-5 is like the classic example. This is in no way a wordplay or a game 😂😂😂
1 like@Bionium *Pythagorean, learn your adjectives, kid.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome who said you are good at maths?
1 like@Martin Rosol i just said it might be pythagoras, i know it is supposed to be said pythagorean.
1 likeBtw i aint a kid, im freaking 21 yrs old medical student who is a goldmedalist at both maths biology and physics.
My mother toungue aint english, so jumping over me for a small mistake aint good yeah.
That moment when the Audience is equally dumb and makes you click the wrong answer
1 like@Honyopenyoko i am sure the guy above meant Pythagorean triplets, 3,4,5 is one of the most popular triplet
0 likesBest comment ever
0 likesBut isnt 0 also a number? I mean 4^2+0^2=16
2 likesJust bcs you don't know what a square number is doesn't mean you have no sense of scale.
1 like@RaniaIsAwesome it's so simple that I literally found it reading it in the thumbnail
1 likelol
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome it's really not.
0 likes@Shumbabala yeah but how would you even know to set it equal to specifically 25 at the start, without knowledgeable of Pythagorean triples. Are you just guessing which number might fit the equation. I mean that would probably work but the guy in the video might need a faster solution considering the time limit.
0 likes@Patrick Martin Well it is a trivia game right? If you don't know it then you probably just get the question wrong. But I suppose questions like these are sorted out by some sort of contract, as in the guy in the video probably agreed to answer these types of questions. And to be on the show, you probably would have to aswell.
0 likes@Keyz Or walk away
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome It's a dang 3,4,5 triangle. It's 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. How did the audience get this wrong? Seriously, if you learn ANYTHING at all in K-12 school it should be the most fundamental achievement of human civilization 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.
0 likes@Bionium 3 4 5 triangle, nice dude I didn't think of that
0 likes@Patrick Martin
0 likesIf you know your times tables you should know all the whole square roots up to 100 (or 144 if your school did times tables up to 12).
Pretty much every school does times tables.
That said, the question isn't designed for people to work out, it's clearly designed to be for people who already know what a pythagorean triple is.
Why should the answer be sonething people in school anyway? Other who wants to be a millionaire questions don't test stuff you learnt in school.
true true lol
0 likeswell this joke makes no sense and it was liked by 27 thousand other idiots. a sad world we live in
0 likes@Honyopenyoko Ever heard of Euler Pythagorean Sets
0 likes3, 4, 5 is one of them
Since
3² + 4² = 5²
Lol 😂
0 likesJust meth
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome nah this ain't that hard as long as u know basic quadratic equations
0 likes@Mrs Fahrenheit It is not about being good at math. This is something very basic and if there are functional humans who don't know this it is messed up.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome how long were you stumped for?
0 likes@FA bro knows about Pythagorean theorem when 8 years old
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome wdym its simple
0 likes@The_Lord_ 26 just wait a few more decades
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome u ain't that good if u got stumped by this
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome even my brother in Yr 6 got this qwik
0 likesLMAOO
0 likes@FA bro i could do this when i was 8
1 like💀💀💀
0 likesDude, u are insane! 💀
0 likesI don't know how are you saying you're good at math but find this to be a wordplay.
0 likesMost savege orz :)
0 likes@FA
0 likesOnce youre an adult you forget all this shit
Savage! 😂
0 likesHe didn’t loose any money. He won 1000$
0 likesWell it's just 15 monies...
0 likesThis comment deserve a gold metal.
0 likesI feel sorry for him
0 likesHaha I thought that too!
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome ? Is your "good at math" a wordplay on me?
0 likesYou should learn Pythagorean triplets first 😊😊😊😊
1 likeBruhh .. what about Audience
0 likesHaha
0 likesEmooootional DamagE!
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome You can't really claim that you're good in math if that one stumped you.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome then youre not good at math. everyone should know that 3 4 5 are the smallest whole number pair
0 likes@Honyopenyoko it can be called both and yes we can solve this by knowing one of the most well known pythagorean triplets or even just the value of sin 37 and cos 37
0 likesmaths NOT math, proves yanks are not educated
0 likes@Shumbabalasquares which are sum of two squares are called Pythagorean triplets. So, if you had heard of Pythagorean triplets this is a simple problem. Don’t even need to think, as 3,4,5 is a very popular Pythagorean triplet.
0 likes🤣🤣🤣
0 likes😂😂😂😂
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome Haha. Why are you good at math when such question is a wordplay for you?
0 likesL bozo
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome the moment i read the options i knew its 25 cause only pyth trip
0 likes@Honyopenyoko no it says sqr of number is sum of 2 smaller numbers so its c^2 not c and its indirectly asking direct pyth trip
0 likesLol
0 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likes🤣🤣🤣
0 likesOh good
0 likes🤣🤣
0 likesBro the audiance domb
0 likes🤣🤣
0 likesEmotional damage* ughh yes damnn!!
0 likes@FA im 3.5 years old man i found it in 0.3 secs
0 likesgenius
0 likesLoL
0 likesComment of the Century might be
0 likesHe will ....
0 likesDied laughing
0 likesOMG
0 likesThis level of sarcasm?
@Patrick Martin Dude you're justifying not knowing the 6th grade math. I am not expecting everyone to know calculus but this is like basic stuff. If you don't know this, then I don't know what you know. ‘Bad at math’ isn't a thing to be proud of. If you were confused with trigonometry, logarithms or something like that, it's acceptable. Not with not knowing that 9+16 is 25.
1 like@Miss Slytherin I think perhaps it was the way the question was worded, I know my addition and subtraction, times tables, but the way the question was asked was very confusing
0 likes@Patrick Martin Perhaps, but he was not asked to do it in a particular stretch of time. The audience could have got it wrong because of the limited time available, but the man shouldn't have had to use a lifeline at such an easy question anyway. Had he thought even a little more, the answer would've been evident.
0 likes@Tachhen Tamang How are quadratic equations involved to find the answer? The question is asking to find for c^2 such that a^2+b^2=c^2. Meanwhile, a basic quadratic equation would be x^2+bx+c=0. I’m not trying to argue against your point, just wondering where quadratic equations show up in this question.
0 likesTrigonometry a 3 b 4 what is c ?
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome its veryyyyy easy
0 likes@Bionium yep it is literally Pythagoras theorem but, 16+9=25 is SO EASY LMAO.
1 likeUr comment was awesome.
0 likesLol
0 likesThat was dark, but so am I
0 likesMath is litterly a game like sudoku or riddles lol
0 likesWhich is haighly usefull in the real world
Dang I honestly thought it was C - 36. 6x6=36; but 3+6 = 9...which is a smaller square number
0 likes😂
0 likesDid you know that [because we all defend political freedom] innocent people haven't yet discovered how to predict the movements of The Guilty [People] (whose lives are run COMPLETELY by guilt) and then punish them? Is there any doubt that "conscious" means "conscious of What Good Sportsmanship Is" (yes, the concept predates the religion of South Asians [including Indians], to whom it is called "Sanatana Dharma")? I guess being guilty of being incapable of doing math is different though son
1 likebahahaha underrated comment bro lmaooo xD
2 likesHAHAHAHA
0 likes25 simple
0 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣bro, nice one
0 likes😭😭
0 likesNice one😅😅
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome It was one of the simplest question to get money for.
0 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likesوالله ق قستها اخخخخخخخخخخخخخ
0 likes🤣😂🤣😂
0 likesBro you destroyed him
0 likesEmotional damage
0 likes😂
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome I am good at math and calculated the answer. I wonder how half of the people were wrong. But yeah, it's a tricky question for non-math persons...
0 likesThis comment is more hilarious than the actual video.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome you haven't studied Pythagoras theorem yet I guess.
0 likes@Patrick Martin u have to be a mathematician to know grade 3 maths? Oh tysm for telling this i didn't know this :( srsly this is so basic maths and question is so straight.... A 10 yr old can solve this ☠️
0 likes@Patrick Martin if u didn't learn square roots then either u didn't pay attention at all or ur school was completely trash or didn't have maths as subject....a basic thing like doing roots is taught in middle school only.... High schools math is heavily based on squares and roots.... ur school didn't hv maths as subject ig
0 likes@Mrs Fahrenheit even 10 yr old knows such maths 😃 it's embarrassing high lvl maths can't be done with squares... not knowing such basic maths is indeed embarrassing for any adult ☺️
0 likes@Prakhar Or they just never taught it to me in math, idiot.
0 likesremember the Pythagoras triplet 3,4,5
2 likes💀💀💀
0 likes😂🤣
0 likesTechnically no money was lost, he won 1000$
0 likes😂😂😂
0 likes@Bionium yah, hey I got the answer but didn't think of Pythagoras until ya pointed it out thanks.....here a year or so later.
1 likeBrutal
0 likeslol
0 likes@Pat Doyle thanks bruh 🫂
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome dumb kid
0 likes0^2+4^2=16
0 likesO
0 likes@FA Do they teach squre roots at age 8 bro ? 😂😂
0 likes🤣🤣
0 likeslol
0 likesI love you
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome are you dumb? Start with smallest numbers like 1 then go on squaring… 1^2, 2^2, 3^2 and check possibilities if any squared result of smallest numbers adds up-to 16, 25 or 36. Simple. Where did you learn math from? FKN INDIA😹 jesus
0 likesIt is just pythagoras theorem man
0 likesLol . . . "hey dad, I lost 1 million dollars, which is good, I think"
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome itz preety simple
0 likes@Upright Fossil
0 likesBut wouldn't that make you a math illiterate too?
50% didn't have the right answer, only 30% of the audience said B.
So 70% must have had the wrong answer.
@Prakhar
0 likesIt is not about the basic math, it is about how you understand the question.
At first i thought we had to find a square number that also had a square number.
Which would mean 16 since the square root of 16 is 4 and the square root of 4 is 2.
While there are no square roots for 5, 6 and 7 if we are looking for numbers without decimals.
It should be said that english is not my main language, but i do still believe that some people from english speaking countries would understand it the same way at first.
@Rohan Koshti
0 likesI wonder how you reached the conclusion that half the people were wrong when only 30% had the right answer?
When a comment is better then the video itself. XD
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome Seeing this people makes me feel like i am god level in math even though i had failed past 2 calc papers 😂
0 likes@SantiChessK I am 0.01 years old and I found it out in -2 seconds! >:)
0 likesHehehehehe. Is this the beginning of a chain?
@RaniaIsAwesome then you dont know math bro, this question is super easy
0 likesBut the audience was right 2.5^2 + 3.122498999199199^2 = 6.25 + 9.75 = 16. Or are we talking about natural numbers only? Well you forgot to specify that. But still 4^2 + 0^2 = 16. Oh, you meant natural non-zero, distinct, positive, sequential numbers?
1 like@Zoltan B 4^2 + 0^2 is clever
0 likesAmericans Maths is next level hat's of to them. #superpower 😂😂😂
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome If i am guessing correctly you should be an American 😏
0 likes🤣😂🤣😂
0 likeslmfao
0 likes😂😂
0 likesthe question was worded poorly.
1 likeYo
0 likesAnd I though about 50% audience 🤣
0 likesOhh dear, even the audience doesn't know Pythagoras' Theorem?
1 like@Turd Ferguson well he did only lose 15k
0 likesit's simple when you know what a square number is
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome me too lol
0 likes0 likes
@El Majraz That is why the game show chose this question. It was the simplest to resolve.
0 likes@Patrick Martin I would avoid sending your children to the school you attended.
0 likes@ExWEIMan thankfully I don't want kids
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome I'm good at math and I solved it very quickly because it's too easy
0 likeslol
0 likes🤣🤣
0 likesI bet he worked that one out.
0 likes@Anime Fan Monty Python
0 likes@Bionium its not the pythagorean theorem but its a pythagorean triple
1 like@Smol Boye I'd consider it a little of wordplay since they could simplify it to "which of these numbers happens to be the sum of two square numbers". Mentioning that the numbers themselves were the squares to me seems a bit distracting.
1 like@Мопс_001 A square number is a number which is a perfect square. No wordplay there.
1 like@Smol Boye If you didn't understand what I meant by "simplifying", ok. You can go on with your opinion here
1 like@Honyopenyoko since when does letters come into maths 🥺😮😕
0 likesLMAO
0 likesHe didn't lost anything or did he had to pay 15k?
0 likes@XtreeM FaiL Well, it sounds like you shouldn't be going on the show any time soon.
0 likesGazab bezati 😶😅😅😂
0 likes🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@Smol Boye it s obvious from the ratio tat chose A
0 likes@kabib meh English sux
0 likes@FA duh u the little children he talking bout
0 likes@Bionium lol
0 likesKnowing math or not is not binary :(
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome I agree I am the same as you, the sentence was not clear, I took it to mean which number has a square root of a square root that will equal 16, e.g. sqrt(16) = 4, sqrt(4) = 2. This has absolutely nothing to do with one's mathematical ability but whether or not the question is clear.
0 likesNo it was a because 4 square +0 square
0 likesThey did nog provide enouf context
0 likes@Peter you are not alone. Many of us here come from STEM related fields and did not understand the question because it was quite vague to say the least.
1 likeMy background is in computer science and I have studied Calculus 1-3, Linear Algebra, Discrete Mathematics, Statistics and all sorts of mathematics. Math is definitely not one of my weaknesses and I still missed the question because I did not understand initially what it was saying.
@RaniaIsAwesome then u aren't good at math lmao, blame the person not the question
0 likes@Upright Fossil u make sense bug 🫂
0 likes@Unbreakable Pickaxe I got this in seconds also, but then took a while thinking "this is so easy and obvious, have I missed something??"
0 likesYour condescending better-than-you attitude towards people who find math difficult just makes you part of the problem;
0 likesnobody is gonna try to improve in maths if they feel mocked and ridiculed - they will just start associating math with stuck-up arrogant jerks instead.
If you are so damn worried about people having trouble with math, then start TEACHING and MOTIVATING people instead - that is what I do, and everyone should do that same thing, instead of trying to elevate themselves by mocking those people.
I think the question is a bit bare tbh. Could be interpreted differently.
0 likesQuestions should have read, two smaller squareD numbers. Not two smaller square numbers…. He got cheated
0 likes@Johnny C.S. Yes, "square number" is a rather unfortunate term, since it can very easily be mistaken for "squared number", which is a much more general definition that includes any number.
0 likesIt would have been better to use the term "square INTEGER" instead, since this would emphasise that it only includes integers.
Lollll
0 likes@Anime Fan Since you didn't address a specific commenter, it means your comment was for the ORIGINAL posted "Boekster". And THEY were making a joke and your comment doesn't make sense. If you're commenting on someone ELSE who commented on Boekster, you need to click on the 3 dots by THEIR screen name and click "reply"!
0 likesthis is a deceptive question
0 likesLol
0 likesSheeeesh!
0 likes@Ryan it’s supposed to mean a^2 + b^2 = x, x being the sum of two square numbers. You can then see that the answer must be square with the line, “…of these square numbers” giving you: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Square numbers must be integers and the only one here that works is 5, (3,4,5 right triangle) so 25, B, is the correct answer. Does that help?
0 likes@Patrick Martin You can do all of this without square roots still, assuming you can still raise to the power of 2, you can just compute it in your head until you get 4^2+3^2=25. You can assume 25 is square as it was given.
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome what math are you in?
0 likes@RaniaIsAwesome Oh, I would like to comment on this. Usually the most advanced types of math is started with silly games and questions. Not like what your referring to but the angel/devil game just cane to mind and I couldn’t resist bringing it up.
0 likeslolll
0 likes😂😂😂
0 likesthe fact that 78% of that audience couldnt do literal middle school math is astonishing
2262 likesReplies (101)
I'm going to send people to this video when I'm caught in those situations where a majority of dingalings assume they HAVE to be right purely because more of them agree.
87 likesMan people got confused with the question. The sentence isn't properly framed. People assumed it like: 2²+2²=8 and 8²=64
169 likesPeople weren't really weak at math but rather weak at English.
@C Ch If most people agree about anything that requires analysis, they are almost certainly wrong. (outside of a context with selection bias is present, e.g. all harvard grads, or confounding variables, e.g. all were just told the answer)
12 likesnah I think it's just that their reading comprehension probably sucks like mine. The question was worded well but I misread the word "sum" and it messed me up badly💀
22 likes@Donnie Bao And they punctuate it with "bro" or variation.
5 likes"Bruh! You the only one saying it, bruh!🤣 Your the only one, bruhhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣"
Trombone. 😖 On second thought I should walk away from these people.
@C Ch brilliant
2 likes@Bonk_RL It turns out I saw this video 4yrs ago and saw my comment from then. (YT knew I forgot I saw it, hehe). I thought people processed the question wrong, probably thinking the question was asking for 2x2 times 2x2.
8 likesOn second thought, probably most KNEW they couldn't understand the question then reworked it backwards to MAKE it fit 2x2 x 2x2. "The question is weird. Surely this is what it means. I have to answer SOMETHING."
Confirmation bias in mathematical form. It doesn't occur to most people to form no time-senstive opinion at all.
@Bonk_RL i mean i literally scanned through it and understood it no problem, if u even put any thought to what they r asking its pretty obvious
15 likes@Bonk_RL that how I read the question as, so I also thought it was A
2 likes@Brett Knutson yeah i know people make mistakes but the other people just don't understand
1 like@Dry137 that's for you not everybody thinks like you bro
1 like@Fatin Amirah no shit, but i mean like read the question bro it's so blatantly obvious what the meaning is when u break it down. "which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers" so which of the 4 presented squares numbers r the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, it really isnt difficult and after thinking about it the audience prolly just saw that everyone else was voting 16 so they did as well
4 likes@Fatin Amirah it's either you know or you dont. simple. lol
1 likeNonsense. This is not an easy question to do in your head under pressure with limited time. And knowing the Pythagorean theorem formula doesn't help it go any faster.
12 likes@Capt-Intrepid mf who said anything about the Pythagorean theorem? Also I scanned through the question and knew the answer before they even finished giving all 4 answers, it really isnt difficult
0 likes@C Ch Democracy is great for some people if 2 wolves and a sheep are voting for what to eat for dinner!
0 likes@Jim Hill You forgot the shepherd. ;)
0 likes@Capt-Intrepid Pressure sure, but the host even said "take your time".
1 like@Capt-Intrepid problem is he didnt even try. He didnt read the question a second time nore did he calculate anything.
3 likesHe purely just relied on the majorities answer.
S whats also astonishing is the sheer amount of empty space in ur head
0 likesS You have incorrectly spelled "spelt"
0 likesThat was not a middle school math. I did not even understand what they were asking
2 likes@Bonk_RL exactly my point. I did not even understand what the hell do they want. Not English thou
1 like@Dry137 yeah yeah, are u a billionaire yet
0 likes3rd highest answer. Not even a close second. Insane.
0 likes@Bambina Forever 3^2 + 4^2=5^2 is literally something a 6th grader could do + ive seen that as the example when teaching Pythagorean theorem literally dozens of times
2 likesTook me about 1 minute to figure this one out, would take much longer during pressure.
0 likes@eternalfootman994 <-- Dingalings make things up then base conclusions on them.
0 likes@Bonk_RL this explanation makes zero sense
2 likes@Bradley Toccata yeah the 30 other people who liked are dumbasses and you're the smart one here 😀
0 likes@Bonk_RL I didn’t say anything about me being the smart one or anyone else being dumb, all I said was that your explanation for why people would have thought it was A didn’t make any sense.
2 likesYou could have just elaborated on what you meant and I gladly would have considered it, but instead your first instinct is to make insinuate that I think other people are dumb. Projecting a little there perhaps?
@Bradley Toccata Yeah that's on me. I was really pissed and hungry and I saw your comment and replied to it in a disastrous way.
0 likesWhat I meant was people who don't have English as their mother tongue got confused with the question. They couldn't understand it and i just wrote what I had thought in my mind.
@Bonk_RL eh fugget about it, I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t done the same thing at least once before.
0 likesSo you mean non-fluent speakers might have read the question as ‘what is the second square number going from lowest to highest’? Maybe, I could buy that, if not for the fact that it’s a very safe bet that the overwhelming majority of the audience is fluent English speakers, if not NATIVE speakers. So I still think it’s more likely because the audience didn’t think it through. Although to be fair they don’t exactly get a lot of time to vote. It was like 5 seconds, they should really have double that at least. Although the AOL poll (which I have to assume was untuned if it was taken from the web) yielded similar results, so maybe that factor had almost no effect.
Lmao, not gonna lie, I have finished calculus 3 and failed the question XD. Got confused and thought it had to be the sum of the same number. Like 8+8 = 16. Fell on the reading comprehension YIKES
2 likes@Sorest same, there I tried to apply complex stuff that I have learnt during my journey through both calculus. Due to that I've overlooked the simplest answer. It's this sort of question a kid or a person who likes math or works with it wouldn't have any problem to answer correctly, however when use more complex thought process it becomes daunting task to get it right under a limited scope of time(1min)
2 likes@Bonk_RL How would that be the sum though? That would be 20
1 like@Jay L 2+2= 4 and 4²=16 that's how majority of people who are weak in English thought this.
0 likesActually, it is possible that the audience collectively sabotaged him into getting the wrong answer.
1 likeMore like English is stupid
0 likesYou would be amazed sometimes... I once saw a little math short of the type "what is the correct answer", and it was literally a simple math question involving addition and subtraction with like 3 or 4 numbers.
0 likesI kid you not, I found someone in the comment section writing a VERY wrong answer, and on top of that insisting that everyone else who got something else was so stupid not to know the right answer. We are talking basic plus and minus rules and in which order to do the operations.
Me, who had recently been having my struggles with a very tough math course at university level, at that moment I reminded myself that "at least I am not THAT bad at math" 🤣.
have you worked retail in the US? not really surprising
0 likes@Bonk_RL I'm a foreigner from South America and I could understand the question dude, I'd rather like to believe that they gave him the wrong answer on purpose hahaha.
2 likes@Victor Hugo no one would do that lmao
0 likes@Bonk_RL it said sum, clearly
2 likes@Bonk_RL It says sum though! Are you telling me it's not reasonable to expect someone to know what the word sum means?!
3 likes@λ clearly, he is trying to justify his own shortcomings in math
1 like@TheJohanster please understand that I'm not weak in maths, im just weak in english. And people who liked my comment indicate that they agree with me. Just don't assume bullshit like that
0 likesMany people thought that they did not have to square the resultant additives
0 likesLike 2+2=4 => 4²=16
the reason is because they dont understand what the quetion is asking
1 like@Bonk_RL what? This interpretation is more confusing than the actual question lol
3 likesMurica!
1 likeu mean 78% of the USA
1 like@Bonk_RL but 2 is not a square number...
1 like@Stellar! 💀💀💀💀nah bro fr. You just are a life time mcdonalds worker, enjoy champ
0 likes@Bonk_RL that argument could've been made if he asked for a pen and paper to write the linear equation down but just couldn't figure it out because of the confusing English, but the fact that he didn't even try to do that invalidates it. I know most 4th grader Indian kids would be able to solve this correctly because the question didn't have any time limit.
0 likesLet's hope that only the idiots are watching this show.
0 likesEh, not really
0 likesIt's doing math fast and on the spot. It's easy math, but also easy to over think and have slwmthing completely different come to your head
@Dry137 People do read it
0 likesAnd people get confused because the math seems easy and sowmrhibg else comes to their head
@Bonk_RL Nothing wrong with the wording. If an adult can't understand it then they're an idiot.
0 likes@Bonk_RL However it should be noted that the expression "square number" is unambiguously defined and if you say "The sum of two square numbers" it is thus 100% unambiguous that this means you are looking at the sum of two positive integer numbers that can each be written as the square of another positive integer number.
3 likesFor this reason, the sentence is indeed properly framed and if someone misunderstands that, it's really on them and no problem with the question.
America moment.
1 like@Bonk_RL 2+2= 4 and 4²=16 still makes no sense on so many levels, the question literally asked for a solution that - is - the sum of two smaller square numbers.
1 likeYour "solution" requires multiple mistakes, not just some English weakness:
- your solution is not a sum, it's a square
- the sum in your solution isn't between two square numbers
- 2 is not a square number, thus shouldn't even be part of the solution
- your solution doesn't even contain two smaller square numbers to begin with
You make it sound as if the audience was full of people who barely finished their first English class. Seriously, in Germany any kid in secondary school (age 12+) should have enough reading comprehension to understand the task.
I've taught many people in my life and I've encountered countless people who froze when hearing any mathematical term like "sum of square numbers" and then shout out some "sounding correct enough" answer. Not because they didn't understand it in the specific language, but because they never learned to stay calm when it came to mathematics. Instead they either freeze, jump to conclusions or both.
This is also the reason why many people get the Bat-and-Ball problem wrong.
@Victos Vertex I still don't understand what you are talking about. 2²+2²=8
0 likes8²=64
Bruh
@Peter That's nonsense, there is no such thing as a "squared number" and it wouldn't even make sense.
1 likeYou literally gave an example of a "squared number" being the square of an irrational number. By that definition - every single number - can be declared "squared number" and the term would be useless. Hence why it isn't used anywhere.
"square integer" is just as horrible. It's ambiguous and may imply that it's enough for the resulting square to be an integer. By that definition 2 would again be a candidate (as would be literally every single integer).
"Square number" may not be the most descriptive name, but there simply is nothing to mix it up with in the first place. Seriously, in Germany kids in second and third grade learn the small multiplication table and know what square numbers are.
If you're an adult attending a game show about knowledge and fuck up a primary school math question you should be ashamed. (unless you have a legitimate disability)
Says the guy who thinks 100 - 30 = 78?
1 likeLOL
@Bonk_RL What a defense of basic ignroance lol
1 like@Faux Toez 22% said it was B (the correct option) and 100-22=78. Idk where ur getting 30 from but it's definitely 78% lol
0 likes@Bonk_RL The sentence is worded perfectly, therefore he and most of the audience cannot do simple arithmetic or understand a question consisting of words of one and two syllables.
1 like@Paul Weir im so sorry bro I'm from India im really weak in english i couldn't understand the question 😢
0 likesI can’t I try my best but I can’t
0 likesLack English, I don't speak English and I find it wrong. Yes, I know that 3² + 4² = 25.
0 likeseven people good with math can't possibly understand what the question asking, cuz it come to verbal intelligent rather than math logic here. if they just display the question with equation and replaced with unknow variable like x to find, it would be much easier to understnad
0 likes@Dry137 the sum of two smaller squared numbers, 2*x^2 = 25, x= sqrt(25/2), and sqrt(25/2)^2 != 25 but 25/2, i honestly don't understand the question
0 likesTake it a step further. This was a multiple choice question. The odds of guessing the right answer is 25%. 22% of the audience got it right. This means that in theory, an audience of monkeys would have answered the question with more success.
1 like@Michael Havens tbf if everyone sees that 1 option is more popularly voted and they dont know how to do the math themselves, they would obviously pick the most popular one (assuming they can see the vote counts themselves) but regardless, pretty crazy still
0 likesAmericans
1 likethats America for you
1 likeI thought you were joking, deliberately having made a mistake in adding up the wrong answer percentage, but you were in fact looking at the AOL audience data.
0 likes@Bonk_RL Actually, it's phrased just fine. There are extra bits of information, like including the fact that the numbers are themselves squares (though this is likely done to drive home to people what a square number is), and saying that the number is a sum of smaller squares (of course they're smaller if their sum equals the answer.)
0 likesAlso, you're saying the question isn't properly framed, while also saying people were weak at English. Which one is it?
Im in 10th and still havent learned that math. No school has taught me that or at least not yet
0 likes"The fact that INSERT WHATEVER THE FUCK HERE is astonishing"
1 likeYoutube users: 1.8k upvotes
@deuce22 🤣
0 likesDumb americans
0 likesIt's not even middle school. It's 3rd or 4th grade at most.
0 likes@Bonk_RL no. They're just awful at basic math. 16 isn't a sum of any two squares (of integers), nor are any of the other numbers except 25. This is a failure of the US education system.
0 likes@John Paul Jaubert Depends on the state/country
0 likes@John Paul Jaubert Im in 10th and I haven't learned in the US state I live in
0 likes@Braedo you're proving my point. You should consider taking what you know now and thinking how you would choose to teach math to a kid growing up if you were the one responsible for teaching them everything. I think you'd find that it might be very different than how you were taught. Start with succession (adding one), then introduce the idea of iteration, then introduce addition as an iteration of succession, then introduce the idea of inverse, then subtraction and the number line, then introduce multiplication as an iteration of addition, area, then division and fractions, then exponentiation as an iteration of multiplication, then roots as inverses of exponents (then logarithms). Use blocks and manipulables at EVERY step. Introduce basic geometry and graphs at appropriate points (ie. start introducing them around multiplication). Introduce concepts of algebra at the same time. Start pointing out interesting sequences and operations at appropriate times, such as Fibonacci, and other operations such as factorial. Introduce logic puzzles and WODNB problems around age 7. Using this "ground up" method it's easily possible to introduce the hyperoperations, logarithms, the ideas of irrational and nonalgebraic numbers, ideas from non-Euclidean geometry, higher dimensional geometry, Ford circles and Apollonian gaskets, space filling curves, the Horn of Gabriel, and the basic ideas of calculus, etc. all by 4th or 5th grade. Then you can introduce the complex numbers and radians after that. Then onward from there.
0 likesSquare numbers are just the backbone of the multiplication table, and thus can be taught as early as 2nd grade, and certainly by 3rd. Patterns in them, such as that they are also the sequence given by the sum of odd numbers (and why) should also be taught at the same time.
But our math education is sch!te and goes as slow as is necessary for the slowest and least attentive in a class of 20 to keep up. So America sux and Americans are kept stupid.
@John Paul Jaubert Bro we need teachers like you
0 likes@Braedo you're correct. And smaller class sizes.
0 likes@Braedo but in general if you ever really want to learn something, think how you would explain it to a toddler, then after that to someone who had learned what you just taught the toddler, and so on. Until you can do that you don't really understand it.
0 likes@John Paul Jaubert Agreed
0 likes@Peter square number is NOT horrible name because they are literally the numbers that make up squares when you build squares out of blocks, and because they literally ARE squares exactly as you say. Square roots are the roots of square numbers. The fact that this concept can be generalized to include irrationals in no way makes the term confusing. Similarly for cubic numbers: they literally are the number of blocks it takes to build cubes of unit cube side length. Similarly for quartic numbers, quintic, etc. And similarly for all of their roots. The problem is that your math education system, and in particular your 3rd grade teacher, failed you.
0 likes@Bambina Forever it's not middle school math. It's third grade math. Your teachers failed you horribly.
0 likes@Dry137 the poll from the studio audience voted B 30%, the AOL audience correctly voted B 22%. No big deal your math is correct just the wrong poll, don't know why people get so uptight sometimes.
0 likesi think people were confused by the phrasing of the question and proceeded to not reread it and just went for a random answer most of them
0 likes@Zapal Blizh personally the question was worded perfectly imo, I think it's more about not knowing what square numbers mean that throws the audience off. Not knowing any number except 1 multiplied by itself is a square number.
0 likes@Dry137 it said 30 on the studio graph, 22 was from the AOL messages graph.
0 likes@Bonk_RL no, they actually assumed like this (2+2)×(2+2)=16
0 likesWhereas it would be
a²+b²=c²
They thought it in reverse way
Option A.16 was given intentionally make them thought like that way if there was no option A.16 then they might have chosen 25
0^2 + 4^2 = 16 so technically should be correct too
0 likes@Mar Tin technically true, I guess a better way to phrase it would be to specify that it's using natural numbers.
0 likesWhen the audience itself polled for A and when he lost they all started clapping so happily that it had me lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
7172 likesReplies (43)
Maybe they all decided it together...
189 likes@Harsh 7821 did you mean planning?
50 likes@Peaceful Gameplay yes yes yes they all planned together
88 likesBro i fuckn died they started clapping HAHAHA
53 likesLol they are the American audience and they have no relation with calculation 😄😅
101 likesThat day this guy lost his faith in humanity.
101 likesThe audience wanted him to lose
30 likes@xekind i hope so
7 likesAmericans are the best at algebra. You can thank foil for that.
9 likesBro they can't do maths🤣🤣🤣
8 likes0^2 +4^2=16
22 likes@Nithin@3 4^2 is not a smaller square number.
41 likes@Someone Random I lost it when the audience chose "A".
1 like@Abhijeet1271 that s why they build one of the best things in the world. Shut up.
1 like@Nithin@3 but 16 is not a smaller square number than 16
5 likes@Brad H and without "smaller" all answer is true using 0^2
4 likesBecause he took the hit for most of the audience members ^^
1 like@Nithin@3 Genius
0 likes@Brad H you stupid !
0 likesI think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
14 likesLMAO yes!
0 likesaudience is dumb
0 likes@Someone Random
0 likesThis was back in the early 2000s so if thry fail he failed so all failed.
they clapped for the success for all the previous questions.
1 likeThey clapped because the "Applause" sign lit up.
6 likesVery possible there was a prompt/sign that told them to clap.
3 likesIt took me 15 seconds to work out that the answer is 25. 9 plus 16. The audience was full of cretins.
0 likesThat's their plan 😂
0 likes@xekind Yeah, sure. Keep telling yourself that.
0 likes@Kriegter Since it's an English audience in an English TV show, that's highly unlikely.
1 likeHaha that's life
0 likesIt was all an inside Job
0 likesYeah shameless audience
0 likes@Nithin@3 still 0+4 is still 4 not in options
0 likesBtw they talking about sum of two smaller sq nu
hate to tell you this.... it's called caned laughter, there isn't anyone clapping, it's a audio track, been that way since the 1970s
0 likes@Kriegter you’re giving them way too much credit. There’s no way they could possibly confuse the words like that
1 likeThat's what I thought....
0 likes@Abhijeet1271 Don't FORGET, America is a sum of every country in the world. So YOUR country might be one of the ones that "dumbs" America DOWN!
0 likesdon't trust the audience lol
0 likesThey're all told when to cheer or clap
0 likesWell .. Americans ...
0 likes@Kriegter I don't know English perfectly, but I can see that "the sum of" requires adding two numbers. And your explanation lacks adding numbers.
0 likes@Йордан Панталеев that's why. Because unlike native speakers you put an effort into understanding the question instead of cutting corners and making assumptions
2 likesIt's okay. 70 % of the studio audience also don't know math, so he's not alone.
805 likesReplies (6)
And the other 60% don't know English good.
7 likes71%
0 likesYou mean seven tenths didn't get it...not 70%! - Signed an American
1 like@Raspy Something or Whatever 😂😂😂
0 likes@zora_noam flannery dont know english *well
1 like@Rory Macdonald - That's even gooder. TY
3 likesIt is utterly astonishing to me that only 22 percent of the audience got that question right.
2003 likesReplies (96)
And probably at random
72 likesnobody really read the question. They all just thought it's about which of them is a square number and probably clicked the first number they saw since all are square numbers. And most saw A first obviously. Too bad nobody cared to really read what they asked for lol
130 likes@Cinema Tones considering their chances to be right was about 25%😅
45 likesWhy? Look at the homeless, the poor people in the country, the election choices. Jesus. I am happy that 22 percent got it right, to be honest...surprised, too. Shit, a few years back the Britons catapulted themselves out of the EU. They are not good at math either...
0 likes@Tracchofyre but 22 percent is below the expected number of correct answers a bunch of monkeys randomly choosing answers would produce.
0 likesWould have unironically been better just picking a random number 🥴
25 likesMy jaw actually dropped. I feel for this guy, not everyone can be good at math, but something this simple shouldn't have been thrown by the audience
32 likes@thesnackbandit random doesn't guarantee the odds.
4 likes@Emmett Jaakkola Sure you're right, but if a large sample of people were asked to pick a number from 1-4 it is reasonably likely that each number would roughly have 25% of the votes.
6 likesHow is it astonishing? Most people didn't get it here either
9 likes@Rani It is astonishing because the question was extremely easy. (At least for me).
6 likesI guess I should just assume that the majority of adults are much worse than me at math.
I keep forgetting that most people suck at math compared to me.
It’s utterly astonishing to me that a whole 22% of the audience got it right
4 likes25 percent would have been funnier
1 likeNot really. I'm a computer programmer and it took me a minute. The average person would have no chance.
21 likeswhen you have a real job thats not math related. when you have a family to take care of. when you are stress dealing with your bills' deadline. when you haven't done math in years. you have to grow up and see the world from outside of your circle.
17 likes@Gaming Hands yeah it took you a minute. But the audience had much more than a minute.
2 likesthe other 78% only just learned what inflation was too
2 likes@Christian Olson when he asked the audience I knew I was done for
0 likes@Wizardds nah in a western country with good education it just has to do with iq and most humans are just that stupid, stop finding excuses
0 likesplus if they were somewhat smart they would just press NOTHING at all if they dont know the correct answer for sure, but yet they do, so second very stupid move
@alpha, you'll be surprised how many things are considered common sense by other people that you know nothing about. it's called priorities.
7 likes@Wizardds i wont be surprised bc its wrong. u just talk crap bc u are triggered by my answer and maybe lack common knowledge by urself
0 likesMy instinct told me it was A for the first few seconds because I misread the question, replacing "sum" with "product." 4x4, two square numbers, produce 16. The question suggests multiplication because we're dealing with square numbers so it's a bit tricky that way.
2 likes@竜思念形態 weaver My instinct has absolutely no clue that math even exist.
1 likeAnd thats very good
@Raymond Blake calm down with the ego there, everyone can make mistakes and flunk on a easy question, happens to the best.
6 likes@Nopei Dopiyou said: 'everyone can make mistakes and flunk on an easy question '
4 likesYes... But that shouldn't happen to 78 percent of people on a multiple choice question with only four options.
Only 22 percent correct is indicative of something more than a few people making a silly mistake. It is a sign that a lot of the people in that audience are not good at math.
Also wrt to my 'ego': I hear ya. I don't like having to accept the reality that my math skills are in a high percentile... The instinct is to be humble and deny or diminish this reality. And in certain company, it is probably best to shut up about it. However, if I just pretend that I am not very good at math (compared to the majority) then I can't really make sense of the world. If I pretend that most people are as good as me at math, then I may communicate about math to them in a way that they do not understand. If I'm TEACHING people, I have to be aware of the reality that their math skills are (usually) not close to mine, otherwise I will be a bad teacher. If I see an easy math question on a game show, I will be FLABBERGASTED when only 22 percent of the audience gets it right, unless I recognize that people's math skills are generally worse than mine.
I know it sounds really cocky to talk like this, but I have done a lot of soul searching on this topic, and have to just accept the reality that my math skills are at least at the 99th percentile.
It's the truth.
thats quite a lot for americans
3 likes@Emperor I know you're joking, but no 22 percent correct is not quite a lot. In fact, it actually takes some effort to go much below 22 percent because everyone simply guessing should yield about 25 percent correct. To go much below that, you'd have to luck out or a bunch of people would have to know the answer and intentionally not pick it.
2 likes@Raymond Blake I thought people in English countries had greater knowledge than people down here...
0 likes@Zan 3^2 +5^2= 9 + 25 = 34.... NOT 36. Try it on your calculator if you doubt this.
0 likesAlso a number N is a square number if and only if, for some integer k, k^2 = N.
The audience was trolling lmao
0 likesI think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
6 likes@Kriegter you mean 'which number happens to be the square of a square number'.
0 likes@Raymond Blake brain fart
0 likes'muricans
0 likesBecause the question wasn't worded well.
2 likes@micuko vicious how should the question have been worded?
0 likesAnd it’s unlikely that more than half of the 78% who got it wrong were pretending that they thought it wasn’t 25
0 likes@micuko vicious bullshit it's literally explained as well as it could be and succinctly
1 like@Raymond Blake I agree, this question is extremely easy if you know what a square number is. It's basic pre-algebra
0 likeswdym most people suck at math
0 likes@Raymond Blake Bro is more worried about a game show question when he hasn't even touched a girl💀💀💀
0 likes22% about right
0 likesThe other 88% look for answer in Bible
@Norbert Djihnson that adds up to 110%
0 likesDon't you mean 30%? (1:10) Well, it's still a bit more than what you could expect to be the random outcome asking mice in the lab 😂🤣😂🤣... On the other hand, you can live a fullfilled life even without having a glimpse of an idea what square numbers are about...
1 like@Káj-Ármin Ostad yeah I mean 30 percent. Where did the 22 percent come from?!?
1 like@Káj-Ármin Ostad oh I see what happened. I was talking about the AOL messenger crowd, not the audience.
0 likesdon't think people use the term sum much
0 likes@Gaming Hands - you're clearly not very bright and how dare you claim to speak for me. I worked it out in about 5 seconds.
0 likesI figured it was 25 just guessimg.
0 likesWhy are you all saying 22% or am I missing something 😂 30% of the audience guessed right!
0 likes@adam phillips yeah that was my bad... The 22 percent is from some other poll. They show it right after they show the audience results.
0 likesYeah, it's not only that he didn't know, but that so many of the audience got it wrong.
0 likes@Raymond Blake You are right, the question is extremely easy. That is if one is willing to test and not just guess.
0 likesSum of two smaller squares? Just start trying. 16 is 4 x 4. Numbers smaller than 4 are 1, 2, 3. 4 + 9 is 13.
They were an American audience - so, not surprising at all.
0 likesWhere are you getting 22% from? 30% of the audience guessed the correct answer.
0 likes@Roy Lavecchia the 22 percent came from a secondary poll, I think from like a virtual audience or something. The poll was shown immediately after they showed the audience poll.
0 likesIt was my mistake to quote that poll and call it the 'audience', when it was a virtual audience.
Its the U.S. man. Brain dead population.
0 likesA hundred chimps pressing random buttons would do better at this maths question than an American TV audience. Perhaps more money should be spent on education instead of burgers and fries and guns.
1 likeTo be fair the question is fucking confusing
1 like@Raymond Blake you probably suck at math bragging on a YouTube video and all. Cringe kid.
0 likes@adadada dadadad yeah.
0 likesIt's comments like yours that make it so hard to realize and to talk about the truth about my math ability. I am strong in math. It is not bragging. It is simply realizing a truth that allows me to communicate to the average person and to make sense of things I find astonishing (like a bunch of people on a game show getting a trivially easy math question wrong).
But yeah, your comment is the reason why the instinct is to minimize my ability and just assume everyone thinks about mathematical concepts in the same way as me, which they don't.
they are american... math and education is american kryptonite
0 likesMath isn’t everybody’s strong suit
0 likes30 percent of the studio audience got it right but that's still sad.
0 likes@micuko vicious It was worded very well. I immediately understood it, even though English isn't my first language.
0 likesIt's written weirdly it makes you think that the square of the number in question has to be a square number
0 likesI don't believe anyone would find that "utterly astonishing". I lean towards thinking you posted that you're utterly astonished as a not-so-subtle way to flex that you found it incredibly easy.
0 likes@Charlie Parker I did find it trivially easy. The fact that ppl thinks that is flexing or bragging in some way is pretty telling.
0 likes@M C No, it doesn't.
0 likes@Raymond Blake It should be telling.
0 likesSome polls have shown that 20% of Americans cannot locate the USA on a map. 30% of this audience got this question right (not 22%).
I'm sure you'd agree, this question is more difficult than locating your own country on a map.
To answer this question, you'd need to have paid attention in math class, and be capable of recursive thinking. Anyone with an IQ below 90 struggles with even basic recursion, and more than 20% of the population are below 90 IQ.
Not 22. Its 28%
0 likesNot really.
0 likesAnd maybe half of them got it accidentally.
0 likes@Charlie ParkerThis comment section is full of people like that;
1 likethey sit in the comfort of their own homes, with unlimited time and no psychological pressure whatsoever, and then they are like "lmao I could answer it, and the guy who took part in this game show couldn't answer it, so I feel superior now".
It is a really weird way to try to flex, and it is exactly those kinds of people who make people who struggle with math feel insulted and disrespected.
@thesnackbandit mind reminding me what number is picked oddly often compared to the other numbers when people are asked to pick a number from 1-10?
0 likes@Raymond Blake we have einstein here in the comments🤡
0 likes@Raymond Blake I'm 16 and almost everyone else I talk to are completely clueless on how things work like gravity for example but I don't feel a need to constantly point that out because I'm also very good at sports and fighting and I view physical capability over intelligence so I don't flex my intelligence but rather my physical capability since I see that as more important and I admire that more
0 likesEdit: for example, I admire Jon Jones more than Einstein, because he's more capable physically, but I worded what I meant wrong before. When I said physical capability, I was mainly talking about how capable you are, when it comes to fighting, because pure fighting capability is more important, than pure intelligence. For example, if I say that 2+2=5, and some little, weak nerd tells me that I'm wrong and it's 4, then I beat the nerd to death with my fighting prowess, so that now all the other people watching are thinking "well the guy who said it was 4 is dead, and the guy who said it was 5 is not dead, therefore it must be 5, since he's alive and the other isn't!" It wouldn't prove that I'm right, but rather because I was able to win against the other guy in a fight, I can now choose what 2+2 equals. Now it goes "1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10." So now I am right that 2+2 is indeed 5, because I just changed the meaning of 5 and 4.
@Gigachad 7? Not sure how that is relevent though, since there are 4 options to choose from. Additionally, my initial comment referred more to the idea that if each audience member voted by pointing randomly at one of the 4 options, the likelihood that they would perform better is pretty high.
1 like@thesnackbandit pretty high but not absolute
0 likes@Gigachad Yes, we are working with probabilities so that is blatantly obvious...
0 likes@thesnackbandit you said "*would* roughly have 25% each" instead of "*would most likely* have roughly 25% each" which is a mistake that is "blatantly obvious🤓"
0 likes@Gigachad @TheReal_GigaChad Are you incapable of reading? I very clearly said "it is reasonably likely that each number would roughly have 25% of the votes." Is your attention span so short that you didn't even bother reading the entire comment?
0 likes@thesnackbandit perhaps tiktok has made my brain slightly start rotting
0 likes@Gigachad Hahaha yeah clearly!
0 likes@Gigachad what you're missing is that when you kill the guy with your physical prowess you end up in jail.
0 likesWhereas the guy who can do math well gets a high paying job and has a good life.
@Raymond Blake except he's dead and I was making an example without "laws" that do nothing but prove what I'm saying. Laws are purely ethics, so my example still holds up.
0 likes@Gigachad ok. Fair enough.
0 likesBut you'd be in prison.
@Raymond Blake no I wouldn't, in my hypothetical scenario we're creating numbers and choosing what is what. The law has no power in it.
0 likesApparently elementary school math is too hard for people.
0 likesHave you considered people just read fast or don't process the question properly?
0 likesThat's something a lot of people do when you give them simple things like this. It isn't the math, it's not understanding the question
Not hard to see why so many people got it wrong
@Pugkin5405 It is hard to find an excuse when so many people can't do simple math. What you say could happen to a few people, not 70% of the whole audience.
0 likesSure, people can add 4 + 8 and find a wrong result, but if a high percentage of people are doing such a mistake, then it means there is a big problem.
@shindox Eh, not really
1 like4^2=16, so that'll come to a lot of people's minds quickly just because they aren't really thinking. It'd that type of thing that thros people off. Not the math itself, but reading the question wrong
@Pugkin5405 I think the point is that a lot of ppl's math reading comprehension is not good
0 likes@Raymond Blake Maybe, maybe not
0 likesCan't say based off of this very specific question in a situation where people are going to be thinking fast
Are you sure? I think that some just guessed it and got it right
0 likesNever underestimate the power and pervasiveness of stupidity.
0 likesFor those who don't understand the question:
285 likesA square number is a number, whose square root is an integer.
So 36 is a square number, because 6×6=36, so the square root of 36 is 6
5 is not a square number, because 2×2=4 and 3×3=9, so the square root of 5 is between 2 and 3 and not an integer.
So the question is which of these square numbers is also a sum of two smaller square numbers.
9 is a square number, its square root is 3 (3*3=9).
16 is also a square number, its square root is 4 (4*4=16)
And when we add 9 and 16, we get
9+16=25
So 25 is a square number and also a sum of two smaller square numbers.
This has a lot to do with the Pythagorean theorem, which is about right triangles.
It states that when the two shorter sides of any right triangle are a and b, and the longest side is c, then
a×a+b×b=c×c
So if we have a right triangle with the two shorter sides being 3 and 4, their squares added together are the square of the longest side, so 3×3+4×4=9+16=25
And the longest side is the square root of 25 , which is 5
This is a Pythagorean triple, a square number which is the sum of two smaller square numbers, but it is not the only one, for example
5×5+12×12=13×13
25+144=169
So there could be many answers but the question has four options, of which one is correct.
Replies (23)
@Ella's Edits I mean that would be 34. Not a squared number
4 likes@Elliott Dyson I just realised that thanks
3 likesTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
6 likesa^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^4 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
not being native english this problem hurts my brain
20 likesjust use pythogeran triplet
1 like@Aspark Deity hi friend, did you mean m^4 on the second line of your proof maybe indtead of m^2 that you have? idk im tired ❤
2 likes@ttrss I indeed did, thanks for correcting me buddy <3
1 likeAlso 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is the most popular example for the Pythagorean theorem haha
2 likes@Muzammil Khan 32 is not a square
1 like@ttrss Oh that's correct 💯 ,🥲
0 likesI still don't get it.
0 likesReally helpful, thanks a lot! 🙏🏻
0 likesAll this text to explain such a stupid question. Simply, they're asking for a square number which can also be seen as a sum of two other square numbers. 25 is a square number and it can be seen as a sum of 9 and 16.
4 likesWow! You know elementary mathematics! Congrats 🎉
0 likesNumbers can be of many forms
0 likesComplex, Real or Integer and more...
A square number does not necessarily need to be an integer. It can also be of real or complex form.
Also, consider the equation for a circle...
You'll see there are many Real numbers that satisfy Pythagoras's theorem which is the also basis of the equation for the circle.
The question, in the form it is asked, is ambiguous, misleading and they should have used the word Integer or description whole number instead of just using number..
All of the squared integers presented can be made up of two squared real numbers. But only one can be made up of two squared integers.
There lies the ambiguity. They used the word number not Integer.
Proof lies in the equation for a circle.
So on reflection, the player, the audience and the phone helper, were all unknowingly correct in their
choice of answer and the questioner was incorrect in expunging the player for giving a correct answer albeit to a question that was both ambiguous and poorly defined and incorrectly presented.
Actually, the Pythagorean Triple is NOT “the square number that is the sum of the other two square numbers”. The Pythagorean Triple is the set of THREE numbers a, b, and c that satisfy the equation a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
1 like@ATIsaamee
0 likesi have no idea what you just said.. dr johnny phd
1 likeAnd fun fact, you can use the complex plane to generate any Pythagorean triple you want.
1 likeJust select any complex number, find the length of the hypotenuse in the complex plane, and square your complex number to get a bunch of integers to line up perfectly as a Pythagorean triple.
Just make sure for a+bi, a>b. Example: (2+i)^2=3+4i. (2^2+1^2)^(1/2)=5^(1/2). 3, 4, and 5!
To define "square number" (more commonly referred to as a "perfect square") by using the term "square root" is silly; anyone who does not know what a perfect square is certainly does not know what a square root is either. It would be like attempting to define "perpendicular" by using the word "orthogonal".
0 likesThank you
0 likesDude is so fucking easy, 16+9 equals 25 whats that hard???
0 likesthis explanation is way more complicated than it needs to be
0 likes"Why should I learn Maths?"
11157 likes"Because you'll feel powerful when watching others' Maths failures"
Replies (60)
Maths is beautiful it's like an exploration a discovery an adventure
163 likesNot_Your_Average_Human you forgot puzzle
17 likes😆
8 likesYou won a maths debate.
17 likesOf course..when the base isn't strong...complete loss
6 likes@Anamika Deepu It's not even basic. This is just Pythagorean theorem and people learn this in middle school
18 likes@Achyuth Thouta to learn that tooo...that man need that hypotanuse base altitude relation to know..
3 likes@Achyuth Thouta 😅😅yeah may be he just forget due to tension
3 likes"Maths" just sounds so improper to me. I'll just never get used to hearing or seeing that. Lol
5 likes@Not_Your_Average_Human 1729 man we have some literal same thoughts
1 like@Mahak Pathania Let's talk Maths some time then :)
0 likesAlways how I feel
0 likesLoL
0 likes@Not_Your_Average_Human 1729 yes sir
0 likesI have found an interesting topic of study Animals showing acts of necrophilia
0 likesI think maths everywhere we cannot runway
0 likesReally True
0 likesYES
2 likesI was screaming "ITS 25" throughout the whole video. idk what logic audience used when they chose 16 💀😭
3, 4, 5 are pythagorean triplets since
6 likes3² + 4² = 5² (9 + 16 = 25)
6, 8, 10 are also Pythagorean triplets
6² + 8² = 10² (36 + 64 = 100)
pretty insecure of you my guy lol
0 likes@Not_Your_Average_Human 1729 It's universal.
0 likeshah yes
0 likeshah yes
0 likes@Not_Your_Average_Human 1729 What animals is this displayed in?
0 likes@notveryrea1 There have been reported cases of animals showing acts of necrophilia in Black and White Tengu (reptilian) , drake mallard, Adelile Penguins, New Zealand Sea lion, otters
0 likesYou can read about them on wikipedia
Alex POV: you didn't pick B
1 likebritish people who say maths🤭
1 likeMathematics is not a subject to learn it a subject to solve...
0 likes@Achyuth Thouta the most basic pythagorean triplet and he didnt know it
1 like@Anamika Deepu no he doesn’t bruh. We can easily do this WITHOUT Pythagoras theorem, it just makes it instant to memorise the triplets
2 likes@Rahul Bansal yahh👀thts correct
0 likes0^2 +4^2=16
1 liketrue
1 likeI would've just pass on the question to the next person and just get the money because hell I'm not even good at math ,I don't even know my times tables. It's not really a big deal 🙄🙄🙄🙄😒😒😒😒😒
0 likesI can't wait to tell this to my friends
1 likeBest Comment of the year 🔥💕✌️
0 likesMore like i’ll rather get dates than math bs haha What can you say? I want more spice in life than be some math nerd.
1 like@CanadianBird did you prefer getting dates to learning maths when you were 10, too? That's middle school maths we're talking about here, it's not rocket science.
0 likes@Achyuth Thouta bro u need Pythagorean theorem to solve it? , its just basic logic
1 like@Achyuth Thouta I learned this yesterday lol
0 likesthis aint math. this is simple logic. bro didnt pass elementary school(just like about 78% of the people sitting there)
1 likethis aint math too. this is simple logic.
0 likes@Achyuth Thouta *elementary
0 likes@Not_Your_Average_Human 1729 SHUT UP
0 likes@NotBlazerMC I wasn't saying that to you unemployed gamer
0 likes@PokeJin WWI Puzzle literally contains those 3.
0 likes2+2=4-1=3 quick maths.
0 likes@YoungGun9934 hold up if 2+2 = 4-1 and 4-1 = 3 doesnt that mean 2+2=3
0 likes@YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP SUCKS who in the heck says "Maths" anyways
0 likes@Tayler Easdon idk what's worse, that, or "intellectual" hoodlums using the term in a condescending way, not realizing they only use the plural "s" in UK
0 likes@GINOSAURUS999 People like me in the UK. Believe me, you lot sound just as stupid to us 🤷
0 likes@Peter there's quite a difference between people who have trouble with maths and people who deliberately do not study it because deemed "unnecessary in everyday's life"
0 likesThat's not the reason, it helps you think more analytically and think about approaching things/problems in life in general from different perspectives.
0 likes@Tayler Easdon believe me, you lot the other side of the pond sound just as stupid
0 likesWow, some incredibly stuck up "specimens" on here. Whether it's basic maths of not, some people aren't as good at others at maths. Do you really need to be so smug about knowing the answer? Seriously, get over yourselves.
0 likes@john n y'all can't take a joke. Always feeling offended, even when the joke is not about you
0 likes@Babba Bia Messer Oh I can have a laugh trust me, but taking the Mick and having a laugh at someone who can't do a maths question now matter how basic it is I just don't find very funny. But it's not that so much, it's the smugness that is so rich in some of the comments.
0 likes@john n it definitely looks like the other way around. Anyways, as I said in a previous reply, the joke is aimed at those who refuse to study maths rather than those who have a hard time studying it.
0 likes@Babba Bia Messer I did it in primary and secondary and was crap at it, better at pie charts, shapes etc I guess, generally though I was crap at it. I didn't study it in college etc.
0 likesWhy so shallow much??
0 likes"If you not willing to learn math, then you will take the aftermath"
2900 likes~ Sun Tzu, apparently
Replies (17)
And yes
9 likeslmao!
8 likesLmao
5 likesUNDERRATED AF
13 likes🤣🤣
2 likesit wasn’t even about not knowing math. it was about trial and error.. and it was the easiest question ive ever seen
15 likes"Phimosis is cured grabbing strongly the pipe with both hands "
1 like~ Winston Churchill.
Bruh you need to learn English first
0 likesthe question was worded poorly.
3 likesGet out of my road or i'll knock you out, Kostya Tzu!
1 likeMan who runs in front of bus gets tyred. Man who runs behind bus gets exhausted.
3 likes- Sun Tzu
Wtf Sun Tzu never said that
0 likes@Shufu Ni
2 likes"Man called Shufu Ni never understand sarcasm"
- Sun Tzu, also apparently 😅
Lmao
0 likesThe question had nothing to do with math
2 likes"Do not believe every quote you find on the Internet."
4 likes– Abraham Lincoln
Yep... every journey begins with the first step
1 likei was so confused until i realized that the sum of two square numbers doesnt mean that the numbers have to be the same
485 likesReplies (12)
same bruh fuck matgs
0 likesSame, I felt so dumb, but then again, I got so nervous for the guy that I chose 4*4 = 16, but then ... What happened in my brain after, I CANNOT explain because it doesn't make any sense why!
46 likesIt's also the sum, not the product, which is where people screwed up
14 likesNAW SAME 😂 I WAS LIKE “wha” and then i reread the question and I was like OH!
7 likesI thought the same. felt like an eternity to correct myself.
1 likeExactly lmao
0 likeshaha same, that moment when you start to search for proof to how to add two squared four to get 16.
3 likesYeah, I had the same initial reaction and had to reread the question. It's not a very hard math question but doing it live in front of an audience might make me mess up.
8 likes@John McAuliffe You're correct in how that works but I do think you're giving the audience too much credit.
3 likesBut if they WERE the same and 16 was the correct answer, they would each have to be 8, and 8 is NOT a perfect square.
0 likesThe problem is that your 3rd grade teacher never taught you about square numbers like he/she should have.
0 likesLmaooo same
1 likeI think I know why half of the audience chose 'A': Of the four choices listed, 16 is the only square number whose [positive] square root is also a perfect square (4 = 2^2). I also went with 'A' until I re-read the question and realized what it was actually asking, so this really seems like more of a reading comprehension problem than a math problem.
79 likesReplies (4)
Yes, exactly! I initially interpreted the question with "product" instead of "sum," and I bet much of the audience did, too!
12 likesYeh it's also just an issue with the human brain filling in blanks and assuming, when i first read it i thought it was that too, but it was really just an assumption, my brain skipping over the vital details in the question. Going back and reading it again it made sense, so it was less the ability to read it correctly, rather than the brains tendency to assume.
6 likesAnd that's even worse
2 likes@MusicGuy I thought it was of two squares from the listed ones. But, its just any squares.
0 likeseveryone: pythagorean theorem is useless we’ll never need in real life
917 likesthis video:
Replies (46)
😂
3 likes@Jar Jar Sphinx Fucking lolz
2 likesFacts
4 likesLOL/ The very 1st equation you learn in Algebra.
11 likesIt’s simple multiplication and addition. We’re talking about 4x4 and 3x3 then add them together. This is elementary level math.
23 likes@Thecheekclapper it's because 3² + 9² = 5² is very recurrent when performing calculations on triangles with pythagorean theorem.
16 likesRight triangles with that measures are called egyptian triangles, if i'm not mistaken.
@Felipe Matias wtf are you talking about, she said two sums that equal 25. Obviously it’s going to be 4 or less. If you even bring up any other number then I’m clapping your moms cheeks and blocking her number
1 like@Thecheekclapper typing error, i meant 3² + 4².
25 likes@Felipe Matias your moms cheeks just got saved from obliteration for now.
1 like@Felipe Matias you can edit comments in youtube. its a brand new feature and just exists for over 15 years.
27 likes@Felipe Matias have you already forgot that you wrote a second comment instead of editing it? xD
1 likeI don’t know what that is but its pretty easy to calculate, I simply got it by adding 9 to 16
2 likes@Layla Garcia exactly, these nerds act like you need an equation for simple math.
8 likesWell that's not the real life you talk about, right?
0 likes@Multiarray Heheheha, lol dude 💀
1 likeActually Pythagorean theorem even gets used vectors and linear algebra, especially determinant and the length of a vector. It is also useful in getting the arc length and even the area under an arc over a 3D curve. And don't forget it is the basis of Trignometry.
2 likesAnyways, even if one hates math, Pythagorean theorem and a little bit of algebra would be do them good if they remember them.
@Felipe Matias So it's less about understanding pythagorean theorem and more about having memorized side lengths of a small easy subset of right triangles?
0 likesAn example I could give is having forgotten what multiplication is but still knowing what all the numbers up to 12 multiplied together equal. I don't have to "calculate multiplication" in my head when I'm asked what 6*7 is I just have it memorized
the hell does this have to do with pythagorean theorem? It's just a basic question of exponents. Or do you mean "memorizing side lengths of small right triangles is useless we'll never need in real life"?
2 likes@Mickey P the pythagorean triple 3 4 5, 6 8 10, 12 16 20 etc
1 likeu dont need pytha for this ur just dumb
0 likesAlso true for those on social media who say "day # whatever" of not using the pythagorean theorem. Meanwhile the pythagorean theorem can be used in higher dimensions to help match people by interest on those social media platforms...
0 likesYeah only that this doesn't really help here.
2 likesYou have 5^2 = x^2 + y^2.
Without guesswork you won't get very far.
@Finkel - Funk no because most people's teachers taught them the "Pythagorean triple" which is that 3²+4²=5². also 6²+8²=10² etc etc
0 likes@Growskull I think you assume this
0 likes@Omegaweapon116 everyone i know (that ive asked) was taught it
0 likesIt's exactly the "3,4,5" rule that's used on building sites every day to ensure that corners are square: measure 3 units on the x axis, 4 units on the y axis, measure 5 units between the end points and the angle is 90 degrees, hence rectangular foundations...Pythagoras in action.
0 likesI didn’t even need the theorem for this problem I just did guess and check 🤷🏻♀️
0 likesCujo19760210 its even before trig
0 likesThis comment confused me until I realized 3, 4, and 5 are a pythagorean triple and is effectively what this questions asking. Crazy how much geometry simplifies algebra, I just brute forced the answer.
0 likes@Thecheekclapper Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean that others are nerds
0 likes@Aqua Regia it’s simple math, if you can read you would know I said you don’t need an equation for 4x4 and 3x3. A second grader can figure that out.
1 like@Thecheekclapper You don't get the point. A lot of people know the 3,4,5 triangle, which popularises the 9+16=25 equation. It's not that you need Pythagoras to solve this ( there's not even a triangle here) , it's just that Pythagoras allowed us all to memorise this.
1 like@Aqua Regia you don’t get my point, you don’t need the triangle or the equation. All you need is simple multiplication an addition. Nothing else
1 like@Thecheekclapper Does that mean those who realise it using Pythagoras are nerds?
0 likes@Aqua Regia it means they get no p#$$y
1 likeTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
1 likea^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
I wanted the biggest TV that would fit in my entertainment center. Easy. I took the width (44 inches) divided it by 4 and then multiplied that number by 5 and got 55. Unfortunately, I then I found that the bezel around the screen is not calculated in the screen size, so I ended up with a 50" TV, not a 55" TV.
0 likesye the 3 4 5 rule would have been used
0 likesHonestly gamers of Minecraft and fans of Technoblade know about Pythagoras theorem very well.
1 likeThe thing is.. I didn't know what they meant when they said smaller square numbers.
And even when I translated it, there was a litteral poorly said answer in my Czech keyboard..
3² + 4² = 5²
9 + 16 = 25
I just didn't understand what they menat when they said smaller square numbers really..
And yet here we are, with Pythagoras theory in mathematical sense.
And not the geometrical one.
@Thecheekclapper the point is that when learning the Pythagorean theorem you learn that 3, 4, and 5 make a perfect right angle because 3^2+4^2=5^2
0 likes"Real life" = a trivia game show that no longer airs on TV
0 likes@yeboxxx channel 25 is a square number, and is the sum of 16 and 9, which are square numbers with less value, or “smaller” square numbers
0 likes@Tiaan Van Rensburg What the hell can you not understand about me not knowing English?
0 likesI meant that I don't understand all of English for sakes.
@yeboxxx channel I’m so sorry, my English is not very good either, do you want me to explain anything else closer ?
0 likes@Tiaan Van Rensburg Not really.
0 likesI just want to end the conversation here.
Actually no, the Pythagorean Theorem is not normally learned until GEOMETRY, not algebra.
0 likesI’m not gonna lie I don’t blame him cause it took me a minute to really comprehend the question lol
296 likesReplies (30)
poor reading comprehension
10 likes@TheJohanster
0 likesI solve tricky word problems in an actual engineering physics program all the time, and I still found the question in this video a bit weird and confusing for a moment;
it is poorly worded, and it is easy to misinterpret it if you aren't lucky enough to immediately get it.
Bruh, it was literally a 6 grader question, your parents shouldn't give you a phone kid
8 likesMarc Cadet is dumb
1 like@TopHat Jones I’m sorry
13 likes@TheJohanstercool
0 likesI saw this question a few years ago, I saw it again right now and I still don’t know what it means 😅😅
15 likesIf someone can help me out that would be cool
@Spooky Puky umm lemme help u
1 like@Spooky Puky basically A, B, C, and D are all square numbers (sqrt of 16 is 4, sqrt of 25 is 5, sqrt of 36 is 6, sqrt of 49 is 7) and the question is asking which 2 smaller square numbers equals one of those. the answer is 25 because 16 (which has the sqrt of 4) plus 9 (which has the sqrt of 3) equals 25. hope this helped.
16 likes@TheJohanster not really the question had me confused for a minute but when i actually realized what it said the question was really easy
16 likesYou are also weak like him in maths
1 like@Saif yes
1 like@TheJohanster yes
0 likesi didnt evn read it properly and said 16 💀
0 likes@X32_22A [Successor] hi just an addition so we can prove that this is also a bad question: Nowhere in the question it is said that it has to be an Integer number so basically i think one can make an argument that all answers where correct.
2 likesSince 16 = ( sqrt(12) )^2 + 2^2 is true for example, sure sqrt(12) is no integer but still a number.
@TopHat Jones the question was ambiguous. it should have been worded "Which of these numbers is the sum of two squares"
16 likes@naptable please stop trying to justify your stupidity, the question relies on basic common sense. if you cant use common sense, i guess you cant win a million dollars lol.
0 likesps. you are an idiot.
@Jason Bentley
5 likesThis question at its core is really asking "which number has a square root that is a possible hypotenuse length for a right triangle where all sides are integer lengths?".
@TheJohanster loser
0 likes@TopHat Jones wow you must be very good at fighting since you're talking to someone like that and you obviously wouldn't be disrespectful on the internet purely because they can't reach you through the screen right?😀
6 likes@Jason Bentley also two "different" squares. First time around I thought it was C because 4 squared plus 4 squared equals 36 and it stated nowhere in the question that the numbers had to be two different numbers. I would've been pissed if I was on the show and I said 36 and they told me I was wrong because both B and C correctly answer the question but not the intended meaning of the question. Poor wording from the guy who makes the questions.
1 like@Gigachad That would be 32, no?
1 likeIt is a rudimentary question.
0 likesRight I thought she meant that you needed to find the number which is a square number and where half its value doubled was the same number.
2 likes@Jason Bentley exactly
0 likesPythagoras
0 likes@Spooky Puky Google a right triangle and Pythagoras.
0 likesA*a plus B* b equals C * c
@TopHat Jones its not that serious tophat jones
1 like@TopHat Jones not everyone learns math in english smartass
0 likes@TopHat Jones touch grass brainlit
0 likesThe audience's audacity to clap afterwards is gold 😂
7273 likesReplies (30)
"We successfully made this guy fucked up"
668 likes😂😂 exactly ... I laughed so hard when that happened
123 likesGod this is so evil
94 likesLol
12 likesLolllllllllllll Americans
60 likesdemocracy wins again
2 likesyeah, good job guys, we sure showed him! 👏
51 likesRight!
7 likesLOL didn't even think about it 🤣
7 likesclapping well done for trying, totally your fault- the audience, probably
26 likesAs a follow up question, I'd like the audience polled about which two squares they think add up to 16
45 likes@Faerie 😅😂😅
0 likes@Marcilla Smith I bet they thought the question was "Which of these square numbers also happens to have a square root that is also a square number?" trust me I thought the same thing.
9 likes@a normal person I would doubt you, but then, if anyone should know about how a crowd of random people thinks, it should be a normal person, so I concede, and I thank you.
8 likesWe need to report this flaw to the developers, so maybe they will fix the npc's ai
11 likesi remember when my teacher is about to retire, she cried while guy with laptop open sad song out of nowhere. even funnier, people clap for her speech.
0 likes@Marcilla Smith i was thinking 8 and 8 but then I realized those are cubed..
3 likes😂
0 likesWhy is audience clapping?
0 likesTook me about two seconds to get the answer. I don't know how stupid that audience has to be. Or at least 70% of them.
0 likes@Heyoka seriously?
0 likesSabotage, clearly
1 likeIt’s called sympathy.
1 like💀
0 likesThanks to the room warmer 😅
0 likesLmfao 😂😂
0 likesNo shame ☠️
0 likesIt's not audacity. The show has a warm up man or floor manager that starts clapping and all the dumb people copy him. They could do a test run and say "Sorry, 2+2 does not equal 4" and the audience would still clap if they saw that everyone else was doing it. Humans are herd animals.
0 likesThey probably clapped because a sign told them to clap.
1 likeThe applause sign was flashing
0 likesThe reason 16 was such a common answer was because the question would be confused with "Which of these square numbers' root is also a square number?" I'll admit my brain also immediately went to A, however after re-reading the question it clicked that it is the "sum" instead.
43 likesReplies (1)
Yes, exactly! I initially interpreted the question with "product" instead of "sum," and I bet much of the audience did, too!
3 likesI've learnt over the course of my life that to be considered smart as an adult you just need to be able to remember what you learnt at school(not college, school..like primary school).
209 likesI was very average at maths but i remember most of what i learnt, it's crazy knowing for instance almost everyone learnt %'s and ratio's but most adults struggle to utilize them when they're needed. Just for example i've seen the 50/1 fuel oil mix in 2 stroke fuel leave people stumped when they're given irregular sized containers to mix it in.
Replies (13)
well actually u would expect a grown up person to be able to calculate such basic things, yet many miserably fail as u say and as we see here
9 likesand the second fail is pressing anything if u dont know the answer for sure, thats just logic but many people are just too dumb to get it
@alpha well this video is 15 years ago yet it's really fun to watch, lol imagine if we all comment to our old comments after 15 years I'll probably be like 30 years old time passes by so fast now. 💔🌷🌸
1 likeidk this question was worded poorly
3 likesThat's due to school system. Where you learn most things once for an exam and when the exam is done you discard that knowledge.
10 likesThis is not smart. If this isn't your field of profession, it's useless. If it is your field of profession, you know basic things like ths like they're nothing and you'd be a moron if you knew no more. Smart is competent in your field of expertise. Basic knowledge about everything in a world that is about finding your field and becoming an expert with highly advanced knowledge in your field is is not smart. Situations like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire are rare exceptions.
0 likesThere are people that think that half of an hour means 50 minutes >_>
4 likes@AC What's poorly worded about it? "The sum of two smaller square numbers" is about as clear as it can possibly get FFS.
7 likesAs someone competent in math I'd say that's rather tricky. 50:1 ratio in a container of say 3300ml you'd need to divide 3300/51 for the smaller then do 3300*50/51 for the larger. 64.7ml& 3235.3ml.
6 likesWhat I mean is it's not intuitive. You can know the math but if you are not experienced USING the math you are just as likely to get it wrong
If you applied as much effort in learning basic English and grammar as you claim to have in math, then maybe your post wouldn’t be riddled with errors and actually make sense.
0 likes@leerobbo92 poorly worded, is an excuse for also being too stupid but in denial, you are right question was clear as day.
0 likes@Bob nob , or the simpler (in my opinion):
0 likes3300ml/51 = 64.7ml small, 3300ml - 64.7ml = 3235.3ml the rest
No reason to bring in the ratio of 50/51 parts, if you've already found the size of the first part, of two.
P.S. Yes, to me the question was confusing at first too. This coming from an engineer who did differential equations, abstract algebra...etc. Maybe I'm just horribly rusty with my math, haha. It's not a poorly worded question, but for some reason still tripped me up. If I were to ask the same question, I would probably word it nearly the same as well. Though, my weakness has always been that I need a paper in front of me. Never had the "mind's eye" for math.
@leerobbo92
1 likeIt becomes unclear to anyone who has forgotten the precise definition of the name "square number".
Honestly, "square number" is a terrible name, because it can very easily be mistaken for the more general name "squared number";
the name "square integer" would have been much better.
@Michael Mendoza If your life was entertaining, you wouldn't post that narcissic stuff
0 likesThis is a perfect example of not just that "reading is fundamental" but that "slow and steady [really does] win the race". Host literally said "take your time." This was not meant to be a quick solve. It was a serious brain teaser, and a trippy one at that. I'm the type where I usually use pen and paper for math anyway, but some times I can just look and solve in my head. NOT. HERE. This is why I remind my math students that it is okay to slow things down and reread the problem as many times as you need.
2 likesWhen it comes to everyday intuition, you can trust the power of masses. But when it comes to math and science, don't trust the masses.
301 likesReplies (6)
Can you though? Even in the former case?
21 likesIn short , don’t trust masses
18 likesI will keep that in mind
Lesson learned ✓
2 likesCuz m is silent XD
1 like@Game In One Democracy bad
0 likesI've seen enough magic tricks, optical illusions, bar scams, and psychology experiments to every trust human intuition on any subject. The human brain is full of cognitive traps. I don't even trust my own intuition without careful consideration and validation -- much less the intuition of the masses.
0 likesI initially interpreted the question as "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the PRODUCT of two smaller square numbers?" I bet much of the audience thought that, too, which is why "A: 16" was such a popular answer.
7 likesReplies (1)
Same, I had to read the question again and then I felt so dumb lol
0 likesMoral: use audience poll for only movie related questions
14659 likesReplies (39)
True lol
198 likesUse audience for culture questions that don't require a brain.
988 likesUse the audience answer to rule out one option.
367 likesLMAO
17 likes@Jimmy sounds like a sigma rule lmaoo, hope you know what that is
21 likesDon’t use audience at all, the majority is scum that needs to be kept at bay by the constitution
17 likes😶😶
1 like@Umesh Kashyap 😜
0 likesLol
2 likesHow does the audience poll work in the USA? In my country, only those who want to answer vote and they are told they should be sure or an idea when they vote. 95% the audience poll is right, sometimes two answers have almost the same numbers, but that is very rare and mostly in special episodes
24 likes😁
2 likesMoral: never assume the audience is smart.
20 likesUse audience for shit like choosing your president 😂 not for important things 😂
40 likes@DHANI KUMAR HIREMATH wth is a sigma?
0 likesGod those questions are annoying.
0 likesThe audience is usually right though. Not because the audience members are particularly smart, but because the answers of the people who don't know will tend to be distributed fairly evenly among the 4 choices, including the correct answer. And then the people who do know will push the correct answer above the rest.
15 likesAudience just shows that the NY audience is just as clueless.
1 like@Sponge Bob forking deep dude
3 likesSpeaking of which, the mean girls limit.
0 likesIn fairness, the audience in the older version did seem to be savvy about old phrases or nursery rhymes a.k.a. stuff that'd be before my time, being born in the early 90's. I'd also ask them about household chores/hobbies/cooking as well.
4 likesMrs Doubtfire for LGBTQ questions
1 like@DHANI KUMAR HIREMATH i recommend you to translate first two lines from the song, heh
0 likesFor dumb shit questions go to the audience for help
0 likesWhat.a.comment! 😂
0 likes😂😂
1 likeThis confirms one thing - democracy doesn't work, not always majority is right.
0 likesLmao true
1 like@armpitpuncher > "(...) the answers of the people who don't know will tend to be distributed fairly evenly (...)"
6 likesNot really, and this very video demonstrates this. People can be wrong together in skewed ways. That's how a number of social dynamics work, including superstitions.
Only in USA
1 likeUse audience for culture, politics related questions and not for goddamn math
2 likesOr: Don't use the audience poll when you're in the US and it's a question that requires more than a little bit of thinking.
0 likeshehe
0 likesIma use the audience only for celebrity-related questions cause I know almost nothing on the lives of others since I'm simply too busy
0 likesOr use it to smoke out the wrong answer
0 likesUse the audience poll only for woke related questions
1 like@Sponge Bob THAT'S funny. Of course it's funnier if you're thinking of the one of two that I'M thinking of, lol!
0 likes@Stefan The RainbowPhoenix *the only problem with the US is that we're a "melting pot". So a little bit of every country that disses the US*!
0 likesOf course, in TRUTH we DON'T "melt", but that's a different subject.
😂😂😂😂
0 likesIn India, it would not be a big problem.
0 likesWhat's shocking is majority of audience doesn't know maths either 😂that's America for you
4774 likesReplies (172)
If you ask this question in India ,5th graders can easily answer this 🤣
513 likesTwitter is even worse than this. Look at some of the math poll fails
217 likesBhai sab ko pata hey Indians insebhi gatiya hey😂😂😂😂
16 likes@TS9 Dream Probably 3rd even but barely
15 likesWow . Do green card will not be good for math
3 likesIt's 25👀
7 likes@Hasindu Sashen no shit Sherlock
60 likesAh yes the American winners with Chinese names
69 likes@StayFly your whole “American” team comprised of Asians. Point invalid 🤓🤓🤡
0 likes@StayFly Olympiads tell you nothing about how much maths an average person knows
68 likesEven worse in every other country.
5 likes@TS9 Dream If you ask this question to any 5th grader they would know this.
12 likes@Just an Alt here nah that's an extension, square numbers are taught in 6-7 class and yes I'm Indian
26 likesmath*
2 likes@vade248721 lmao ever saw an Asian doing maths? Even a 5th grader Indian student can answer this question
21 likes@Tuku Singh Are they somehow less American if their names aren't English? Given their statistical over-representation in the military and public administration, talented 1st and 2nd generation immigrants are kinda the secret to the US's success.
21 likesIn america you learn square roots in middle school. So not any 5th grader. Who remembers this anyway?
1 likeAmerica is stupidest country in the world
0 likes@vade248721 lmao clown
0 likes@Pranav Pal In Asia right now. Much worse than you think.
1 like@Max Yes. They are indeed.
0 likesMakes sense,It's the same here in India.
0 likesThe main reason people fail to answer this question is they didn't understand the question
34 likes@TS9 Dream Are your fifth graders also under a time limit with money on the line?
3 likesThe question was confusing though. But your generic “America is dumb” comment got a lot of likes. So whatever.
26 likesAudience had a time limit, he did not! I wouldn't have been able to answer it in the time the audience had to answer it, but was about to figure it out without knowing what a square number was in like 3 minutes. There is no point in insulting 330 million people because 100 of them didn't have enough time to figure out the answer!
6 likes@Jim Frost yeah I agree with you but us Indians and all Asians probably just understand these questions pretty fast since it strikes us probably more easily, we do this alot square numbers are very used in trigonometry and pythagoras, even in equations (which this was question was a bit like it but an equation approach would've costed more time we could do this mentally).
7 likes@ADM was the question confusing tho? It really isn't.
8 likes@Singh-san It was. Anyone who knows about square numbers would get this right. It confused a lot of people. But I guess you can just feel good because you weren’t confused by the question. Congratulations.
1 like@ADM Dude how can someone of 12 or above not know square numbers? Did you know square numbers? "There is perhaps nothing which so occupies the middle position of mathematics as trigonometry" - J. F. Herbart. In trigonometry pythagoras theorem is used so much and it is all about square numbers.
3 likes@Singh-san Bro what are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about 12 year olds knowing square numbers? Are you responding to a different person’s comment or something? Because your comment has nothing to do with mine.
2 likes@ADM You said it "confused a lot of people" I took it like you were saying they do not know square numbers
1 like@Singh-san Dude, I meant the way the question was worded confused a lot of people. Not the concept of square numbers. You missed the point of my comment.
2 likes@ADM oh THAT? Bro that's easier than the squaring part wth.
1 like@Singh-san Ok, whatever bro. It ultimately doesn’t matter either way.
0 likes@TS9 Dream you aren't correct though
0 likes@StayFly So a very small group of elite mathematicians magically makes the average person better at maths? Oh boy... Somebody doesn't know their maths...
1 likeHas your country been to the Moon as of yet?
2 likes@Winfred_Maben kuch bhi, pythagoras ez
0 likesExactly, a game show audience absolutely represents every single person in the entire country! Spot on!
13 likesUSA*
2 likesVast majority of the human population has zero use for these equations and the very vast majority of world would answer this incorrectly or luckily.
0 likes@Miso Burger we got some information about it in 5th
0 likesEvery Indian in this comment section is pretending they have a good education system
16 likes@ADM it was very simple English idk how native English speakers can't know this much... We Indians see a lot of more complex English sentences 😃 if this is difficult for Americans then I- have no words
3 likes@Prakhar Ok. Indians-smart. Americans-dumb. Got it. You know, you can be proud of your country and not put other countries down right? Kinda cringe behavior if I’m being honest. But no matter. America will always be richer and more powerful than yours. Also, your English isn’t that great just so you know.
0 likes@WarriorsFan2021 probably because majority of twitter users are american lol
0 likes@Just an Alt here in 3rd we start to learn division not squares
0 likes@sykr But we have learnt what a square of a number means and multiplication. At that point it's a just mental ability question
0 likes@TS9 Dream Not even 5th graders. Preschoolers
0 likeswhat’s shocking is that brits say maths instead of math
0 likes@Hasindu Sashen no it's 36 dumbass
0 likes@M M can you prove it......?👀😼
0 likes@Hasindu Sashen That's quite easy
1 likeHere's the solution:
We can take 3 and 6, now let's put them in a square, we can see 3 in one vertex and 6 in the other vertex, hence 36 is the right answer when you add them cause 3*6 = 36
25 is completely incorrect
@M M 3×3 + 4×4 = 9 + 16
4 likes=25😑
@Hasindu Sashen 9+16 is 36
1 like@M M You poor thing.... are you like 10 years old?😆
3 likes@Hasindu Sashen No but I'm american
2 likes@M M so...?
0 likesThat's humanity for you
0 likesThat's not America
0 likes@TS9 Dream exactly
0 likesbecause we’re teaching kids that white people are bad and that there are 800 different genders
0 likesThere's no benefit to knowing square roots if your career field doesn't require it.
2 likes@TS9 Dream do you want to be a millionaire in India has some of the easiest questions imagineables
0 likes@TS9 Dream yea most 5th graders in the U.S. also know about this, 3-4-5 is like the simplest pythagorean triple, but its just hard to do math when you're under pressure yk
2 likes@M M the smartest man alive
0 likesAmerican in a nutshell
1 likeI’m a 5th grader lol
0 likes@Pranav Pal my dad knew it when he was in 2nd grade …
0 likes@TS9 Dream Must be why that country is run so well.
0 likes@ADM it is not a confusing question, not that everyone would know it, but its very simple and square numbers + pythagoras which is displayed by the answer is commonly taught.
0 likes@TS9 Dream If you ask this in an Asian quiz show, you will be laughed at and the audience will walk away
1 like@penguin wolf Well, people were confused by it so it actually was a confusing question to some people. But congratulations. Everyone who was confused by it is dumb and you’re smarter than them. Celebrate, and feel good about that. Because it definitely matters in the grand scheme of things
0 likes/s btw
@TS9 Dream yeah, infants even will tell
0 likesThe way the question is worded is atrocious
3 likes@Singh-san Look, the fact is that most of these people haven’t had to deal with solving a problem like this for many many years. So its not surprising that the average 12 year old would get this right more than the average adult because the 12 year old is currently learning about and using that knowledge, whereas 99% of these people here haven’t even thought about this in years.
0 likesAnd this goes for all countries, not just the United States. Kids in school will be better at “school-like” questions because they have the fresh knowledge from BEING IN SCHOOL
@Prakhar “We Indians see a lot of more complex English sentences 😃 if this is difficult for Americans then I- have no words”
0 likesHOLY FUCK. That was really toxic dude. I mean the question from the video wasn’t really confusing, so ur right about that, but you didn’t need to say all that.
You know what might blow your mind? Americans see a lot of more complex sentences than this one too! Can’t believe I have to explain this, but there is nuance to the world; the world isn’t in black and white!
Also you managed to squeeze in the absolutely classic intellectual superiority complex that many have over a group of 350+ million people LOL. Like say whatever you want but damn you put it in the most condescending way possible and there is no way that was an accident 😂
Nah, they were just trolling him
0 likes@ADM I like the sarcasm in response to everyone, very mature and smart and not at all pretentious. Even better is adding a /s. People were confused by it because they dont know it, that doesn't make them dumb and doesnt make the question confusing, there is no way the question could be written better, if square numbers and the word sum are basic maths knowledge. Stop being a twat
0 likes@Dave Fred I figured it out in 10 seconds.
0 likes@TS9 Dream *3rd graders
0 likes@Pebble how tf was that toxic? That was very simple sentence and they said it was quite confusing for many people like srsly? It's a shame indeed for native English speaker to say this is complex... I gave an example that even in other countries better English is used if this is not simple then I have no words.. and it didn't blow my mind nothing surprising...
2 likes@Pebble do people forget counting abcd in their adulthood cuz they studied it many yrs before? No... Maths is not a theoretical subject which you'll forget after some years. The concepts which we learn in lower classes are used in higher classes. It's not like maths is not connected. Everyone knows definitions of some basic things. People do not forget at least these basic things and these easy formulas are taught very early and everyone remembers them... Squaring is very basic thing used in maths ALOT. idk how can someone after yrs forget even the definition of square. It's a shame indeed. Ur comment is valid for theoretical subjects not others...
1 like@lightningalex Congrats
1 like@penguin wolf Nope. It was the way the question was worded that confused people. Not the actual math. I knew the answer to the problem but was confused by the question. If you don’t think we’re stupid, why can’t you just accept that people were confused by the question? Why do you keep denying it? If anything, you’re being a “twat” for blatantly denying that fact and just assuming we don’t know basic square numbers. Your comment just makes you sound like a pretentious asshole if I’m being honest. And there’s definitely a way to word the question better. And even if it wasn’t(which it is), it’s possible for people to be confused by the wording of questions. It happens. So are you saying that we’re are lying at being confused by the question? Or do you assume we’re all idiots who don’t know basic square numbers? Accept other people’s experiences and don’t just assume that they’re all bad at math. Stop being a twat.
0 likesAlso, thanks for complimenting my sarcasm. I completely believe that you genuinely liked it and wasn’t being sarcastic at all in response to my own sarcasm.
@ADM How else is it to be worded? It takes a second to read and understand, as does all maths. That doesnt make it confusing. What about it is confusing? I'm assuming people don't know square numbers because that seems like the only thing tricky with the question. In what way is it confusing at all? and how else would it be worded?
3 likesIt doesn't help that the question is intentionally weird.
0 likes@penguin wolf I read it as "the sum of two of the same smaller square numbers" which would be impossible with any of the answers rather than two different smaller square numbers combined. This threw off me and the audience. I, and probably a lot of the audience, initially thought that the squares had to be the same number, i.e. 4 and 4, forgetting that 3^2+4^2=5^2, which is commonly used to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem. I was thinking the "two smaller square numbers" had to be the same number. Not realizing they can be different really got me. Now, if the question was worded as “Which of these numbers” instead of “which of these squared numbers”, less people would’ve been confused. There’s no reason to add that the numbers are squared since they’re already shown, That’s what threw off many people, thinking that the two smaller square numbers had to be the same. There’s so many different ways to work this out and people were just confused by it. It doesn’t mean that we don’t know square numbers. If you don’t think that there was an intention from the showrunners to make people confused by the wording of these questions, then you’re mistaken. My question is, why didn’t you ask why people got confused first instead of denying their experiences? If you would’ve done that, it would’ve made you look like less of an ass.
1 likeHe don't know something he never needs to use on daily basis 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂
0 likes@TS9 Dream So what? An overpopulated shithole like India is nowhere near America in math.
0 likesIt's math retard
1 like@Kronk
0 likesThanks to a well know German rocket scientist.
@NovaClymax
1 likePossibly because it's an abbreviated form of the word mathematics, not mathematic.
To be fair the question isn’t worded very well
0 likesEh i think people just get "gotcha'd" doing the product instead of the sum.
0 likes@Singh-san You realize that all of this is taught in American schools, right? I knew squares I was 7 years old. It’s just part of times tables and basic arithmetic.
0 likesAs soon as I read the question I immediately thought "Ah yes, pythagoras theorum on how to calculate the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle." when I read the answers I knew it had to be 25 because it's the easiest sum that I learned in grade 2 (3²+4²=5²). Why didn't the audience memorise that one specific equasion? It's clearly the easiest way of remembering how to add square numbers, I litterally learned what a square number was when I was 4 how could 70% of the audience not get this right?
1 likeAs somebody who’s in America and can actually do math, yeah everybody here is garbage
0 likes@Miso Burger I’m American, from New Jersey and I was taught that in fifth
1 like@Professor Archibalding i think they saw intuitively that 16 is the product of two square # cause thats quicker to recognize. If you put a random value for A then i think b woulda won
2 likesWe learned this stuff in like 4th or 5th in socal
@Miso Burger it's not an extension, i had squares and cubes since 3rd grade :)
0 likesAnd the Pythagoras was probably taught in 4th or 5th
@Arnav cube numbers in 3rd grade 💀
0 likes@Miso Burger well , it's just simple multiplication if you look at it 😂
0 likes@WarriorsFan2021 Do you know of any particular Twitter account that collects such "math poll fails"?
1 likeIt's not that easy if you totally have forgotten about Pythagorean triplets and have to go through all the possibilities in your head. If you really think about it, this requires potentially doing 6 multiplication problems (figuring out the squares) and 15 addition problems (all the ways the 6 squares could be added together). Of course, someone that's decent at math could "prune" it down to only a few plausible possibilities, but that's not obvious to someone who isn't savvy about math.
1 likeseeing this people makes me feel like i am god level in math even though i had failed past 2 math papers 😂
0 likesImo a kid being able to do it is very not impressive, someone who's just learning how it works has a better chance at solving than some grown up that has more important things to worry about, like job and maybe kids
0 likes@TS9 Dream i don't think so,they don't even understand the meaning of it
0 likes@TS9 Dream depends who you ask it to, if you're gonna ask it to farmers, they're going to be just as clueless
0 likes@Estebatrón it's the same
0 likes@TS9 Dream yes because they're active students. but majority of people in the audience are not students. it doesn't matter which country it is from. besides, india is stinky, a retarded and overall trash country so u can stfu dumbfuck
0 likesI didn't know it either and be put under pressure
0 likesIt looks like I was right about U.S.A.
1 likeIn India if you ask a second grader this, he would tell you
0 likes@Kami Not at all. Indians are smarter than Americans
0 likes@ADM congratulations 🎉 you're dumb at maths and English as well...😄
0 likesLol I'm half convinced they just wanted him to lose
0 likes@Winfred_Maben India is way better than America in maths so fuck off
0 likes@ADM its fine mate u won't get these sentences unless u practice these kinda problems we Indians learnt these sums and Pythagoras theorem in class 5 or 6 so its easy for us
0 likes@M M did i just encounter a genius
0 likes@anshuman Singh Go Indians! You guys rock!!! Keep up the good work!!! You guys are geniuses!!!!! Go India!!!!!!!!!!!!!!👍🎉 🇮🇳
0 likes@TS9 Dream5th graders in america can answer it too. People just don’t use it in their lives and lose it, don’t act like you countries are any different lmfao
0 likes"Usa..usa...usa.....!" Bwahahahaha....
0 likes@M M What 9 + 10 ?
0 likes@Pebble Some american triggered reading your comment. Becareful ! You gonna get cancel by Socialist Justice War heroes for hurting other people feeling ! 🤣
0 likes@Ihon Shou Should be about 21 but I'm kinda lazy to do the calculations rn.
0 likes@M M YOU STUPID ! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likesJK girl ✌🏻
@Ihon Shou bruh I am american lol
1 like@Prakhar “Maths is not a theoretical subject which you’ll forget after some years.” Huh? So you can forget how to do other things but you can’t forget math concepts apparently? Well that’s funny, because if that were true, calculus would have been a way easier class for me! Also if that were true, I wonder why I’ve heard countless people talking about forgetting how to do a certain thing in math. So yeah, that doesn’t even make sense there. And comparing this question to the abcs is just a crazy huge reach in comparison lol, thats just memorizing the letters, this is a math problem where you have to interpret the meaning of the question, compute multiple values and put them together, plus needing all the prior knowledge to do these problems in the first place. For us, this question looks easy, but for someone who hasn’t really had to do a math problem like this in decades, it probably wouldn’t seem that way. You say “people do not forget at least these basic things,” but this question wasn’t just a simple 2^2 or 3^2. It required more than JUST the knowledge of how to simple square a number. If he got something like that wrong, then I would agree with you, but to be perfectly honest, there are probably more people out there than we think that would even get that wrong lol
0 likes@Pebble "interpret the ques and multiple values "☠️ lmao this ques is as simple as 2^2 and 3^2 yess it's VERY SIMPLE ENGLISH and square is a veryy basic thing in maths. doing 2x2, 3x3 doesn't require too much hard work. squaring no and adding no, that too only squares of 1 digit no ☠️ too simple ques idk why u r arguing over these... squaring is like abcd in maths so my comparison wasn't wrong bye
2 likes@Prakhar lmfao ok ur wrong tho, comparing the abcs to exponents is so braindead, but say bye bc you can’t handle someone disagreeing with you 😂
0 likes@Pebble it's not complex exponents, the most simple and basic exponent 2, which is base of maths, like the way abc is the basic of a language, so clearly it isn't illogical, but well u actually r a rock or pebble, as ur name says. coming to support people who don't know how to square a one digit no..... really such a rock head u r
0 likesI think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
0 likes@b😢
0 likesAh, I love a good dose of Americabad syndrome.
0 likes@TS9 Dream it's not just india
0 likesIQ burn
0 likes@Singh-san Especially on the SAT, College Board loves the 3-4-5 triangles (which just happened to be the exact right triangle relevant to this question).
0 likes@BQ Elite Mathematicians are probably at least three standard deviations from the mean. This would make them outliers, thus causing them to skew the average upwards. The more elite mathematicians you have, all else held constant, the higher the average mathematical competence.
0 likesAnd the UK, too
1 likeThat's actually not a correct interpretation of what happened. The question was misunderstood by a large number of people who ended up solving a different math problem and getting the correct answer for that math problem (A). A plus B answers constitute the majority of the audience pole. It was a linguistic fail not a mathematic one.
2 likesThey tricked the guy on purpose you crackheads really though the audience was answering truthfully? I’m an American and I answered that in less then 20 seconds. The people were literally laughing in the audience when he went with A. Plus you can’t base a whole country over 1 moron. If we all were like this guy we wouldn’t have one of the largest economies would we?
0 likes@Zeromaus wtf. You are saying you don't need to know basic maths? Excuse me, but everything around us is maths. It just goes on to show how little you understand about how things work.
0 likesAnything you are doing with your body such as walking, running, throwing, catching etc is the solution of atleast 4 different trajectories which your brain automatically calculates and solves within a fraction of a second.
The device you are using to comment such bs here is also a product of mathematics integrated into electronics.
How you earn and spend money is also maths. You say you really don't need basic maths in your life? Go back to your cave and don't come out man.
@YouTube EpicUser420 that is such a lame excuse to forget the Pythagoras Theorem.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades tell that to the plumber making 120k fixing your toilet
1 like@YouTube EpicUser420 I feel pity for you. That's all I have to say. By the looks of it, you are better off being a plumber yourself.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades that’s not me in my picture you moron. Imagine seeing my obviously sarcastic name and thinking my well known meme picture is actually me. You also must have had an incredibly privileged and peaceful life if the thing I said makes you feel pity.
1 likeI just understand that for the vast majority of people, remembering how to calculate the perimeter of a triangle is useless. Some things like healthcare, safety, food, income, etc. take precedence.
But if you want to be desperate to feel superior to other people, this is a great way. So keep it going. Just know that you are just another ordinary small-minded person if you can’t understand reality for other people who live differently than you. There’s no difference between you and a typical person without much understanding of world outside their bubble.
@TheFighter InHades YouTube blocked my comment. Read it though, it should be in your notifications. I find your mindset pathetic.
1 likeBut I bet they know all about 'racism', 'gay rights', and all the other crap taught in schools.
0 likes@YouTube EpicUser420 YouTube didn't block any of mine. Should be good enough sign that it is you who is pathetic here. Mr Plumber.
0 likes@YouTube EpicUser420 and yes, I definitely feel superior over you, as I definitely think I have some good education to remember what is the area of a triangle, or the Pythagoras Theorem or the three laws of motion, or the exponents and logarithms. And I will definitely feel inferior to a ten year old child if they know these things better than I do.
0 likes@YouTube EpicUser420 save this excuse of 'reality of other people who love differently than you' for your mom. I have seen my share of stuff, and I definitely don't need to hear this from someone who continuously denies the importance of basic high school education. It has been proved in multiple researches that a basic primary level education is positively correlated with higher disposable income later on in the future, which might even increase more as qualifications increase. So, get your basic maths right first, then talk about money later.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades I’m not a plumber. If YouTube didn’t block my comment you would have seen that. Lmao
1 like@TheFighter InHades “the exponents and logarithms.” How do those words fit with the others? What exactly does “I think I have good education to remember the exponents and logarithms” mean? I think you just exposed yourself dude. I’m not surprised lmao
1 likeI don’t even want to explain why. You clearly watch scishow or some other BS YouTube videos and think you know about science and math. Lol. You must be 15.
@YouTube EpicUser420 for your info, I am a lead analyst in the credit risk domain, with advanced specialisation in Economics, Maths and Statistics, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as my majors in school. So I definitely know what are exponents and logarithms, since I am using them on a daily basis while creating and designing my models to analyse credit risk of business customers.
0 likesAnd yes, I do watch Kurzgesagt, Scishow, NileRed, Veritasium, Mark Rober and many more(to name a few) even today, because I want my mind to be stimulated by latest discussions about science, tech and biology.
The point is, you totally are a doofus to argue with me without even knowing why I am stressing so much on basic knowledge of maths and science.
And the way you just replied me, just confirms you are a bluntheaded person (I won't go as far as to predict your nationality as it would be an insult for the entire nation that someone like you is wasting their tax, food, energy and healthcare facilities ).
I really hope you were trolling all this time. Just please understand the importance of perpetual learning, as it matters a lot irrespective of age.
@YouTube EpicUser420 and btw, even if he can't 'sing' , he is still making more than you, and far more hit with the ladies. You better get a move on, mate.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades wtf are you talking about
1 like@YouTube EpicUser420 you know what I am talking about. If you didn't know, you are dumber than I thought you could be.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades you troll like a 15 year old too damn
1 like@YouTube EpicUser420 so now that you can't reply me any good, you start to question my trolling skills?
0 likesGet over it. I can't troll good, but I definitely know what I am talking about, whether be it mensuration, calculus, algebra, meanwhile you don't. So you dismiss people knowing more than you by saying random bs. Well, I know I won't be spending more time trying to explain you, coz you definitely sound like a 15 yo trying to be cool and mature, whose brain is the size of a peanut. Good day. No pleasure talking to you at all.
@TheFighter InHades I’m not reading any of that
1 like@YouTube EpicUser420 because your dumbass can't understand it anyways. I stand right by what I said.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades imagine how unhappy you have to be to say stuff like this lmfao. “Dumb ass” is the correct way to say that, btw
1 like@YouTube EpicUser420 now you are saying completely random bs, means whatever I said really made some sense, and you literally have nothing to reply me with other than shitposting now.
0 likesWhy would I be unhappy when I am independent and free to do what I want, unlike you living in your mom's basement?
I won't care now by replying to you because it's obvious you have now completely diverged off the actual topic of discussion because clearly I had a higher ground there, and your replies are nonsensical and trying to irritate me.
By the way, if your ass is falling down every time you are laughing, you need a good proctologist, who can certainly use area measurements to save your sorry ass.
(And stop liking your own comments, it's so desperate)
@TheFighter InHades I’m not reading your essays dude. I really don’t care
1 like@YouTube EpicUser420 neither me. Now shut up if you don't have anything better to add.
0 likes@TheFighter InHades you are trying so hard to prove yourself to a random person on the internet. Notice how I’ve said nothing about myself lmao
1 likeTrue all Americans are dumb they can't recognise their own country in the world map
0 likes@Jay Mike
0 likesAll serious companies focus a lot on fighting against all forms of discrimination, in case you didn't know that.
Just take a look at The Global Goals, for example.
@Peter Those who proclaim the loudest to love people and to be against racism...are the ones who would actually take everything you have if they could get away with it.
0 likes@TS9 Dream I am a 5th grader at John F. Kennedy high school of Managua and I know the answer: 25. 25 is 3²+4²
0 likesA square number is found by squaring an integer. For example, 9 is a square number that can be found by squaring 3 (or -3). Therefore, square numbers are never negative. The square numbers up to 49 are:
16 likes{0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49}
Looking at this set, we see that the only square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers is 25, which is 16 + 9.
This is actually an easy question if you understand it. However, most people don't spend time worrying about trivial math terminology, which makes this more challenging because they lack this mathematical knowledge.
I think I'm gonna be a millionaire if this types of questions were asked to me.
37 likesReplies (4)
lol, no you wouldn't
1 like@chhoyla Bro this is a question for 8th standard of Primary class in our Country, lol 🤧🤧
5 likesYea, we began using Pythagoras in prealgebra.
0 likesIf ONLY these type of questions were asked to you.
0 likesYou have to cut him some slack. There is a lot of pressure on those shows. Sometimes I think if they asked me my name I would be like, " I need to call a friend." Also, this might be hard to determine in your head while millions of people are staring.
3 likesThe legend says that he got a PhD in squared numbers after this.
27 likesDude probably asked the math teacher “when are we ever gonna use this in real life??”
5996 likesReplies (54)
i dont know math at all that pass grade 6 Level im disable & i was in PLP class for 6 years the stuff i know is basic things with few Jr or high school here & there
55 likes@havok9001 and we need to know this because...
213 likesIn Pythagoras theorem
6 likes@Frank Horrigan ...and you needed to comment negatively because... never mind no need to respond
54 likes@havok9001 thanks for sharing that with us 💖
37 likes😂
4 likes@Jay WhoLovesEveryone hum excuse me but what was rude in that?
24 likes@Link Link Who said 'rude'? stop trying to start stuff...HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
10 likes@Jay WhoLovesEveryone this man crazy lol
66 likesLol
2 likes@Jay WhoLovesEveryone cry me a river bruh
19 likes🤭😂😂😂
0 likesTo be fair. If I ask my teacher "when am I gonna use this in real life" and they say "who wants to be a millionaire" I'm gonna walk out of that class and never come back
42 likes@Koala Nah, Sis. I'll laugh 'til you get some common sense, Sis AND 'til you learn how to read. 💖
1 likePrince Cooper There's a lot of things in real life where you can use all the math you learned in school. People just don't know how to use it or don't want to think on how to use it and chose to say it's useless cause it easier
19 likes@Flarebloxed he freaking is
1 like@Obed Ulloa ah yes, I'm a cook and I need to learn the pythagorean theorem in order to know how high I need to set the fire at
2 likesWhen you can get a free 16,000
0 likes@havok9001 i missed the part where that's my problem
1 like@DroppedInBase that what ur mom said to u
0 likes@havok9001 bro did your lame ass really just say a mom joke? 😐
1 like@DroppedInBase ya so what cuz maybe ur mom raise a dumbass like u who maybe a bully that cant shut up
0 likes@havok9001 good god i see where the disabled part is, this is is just sad
4 likesOkay but this is a quiz show where the whole point is to know obscure things that are generally not useful in real life.
9 likeslol
0 likesApplying Math in stuff like programming and other things feels a lot more rewarding than answering Math questions in school because in Math Class you're answering questions just for the sake of answering them, which is why most students probably hate math class. But using Math in fields where math is important feels much better because you're solving math problems for meaningful purposes and solutions. Sure knowing the rules before you apply them is important, but Math class really just goes on and on and honestly doesn't need to be a core class beyond a certain point
18 likesIt’s just a random question on a game show. It’s not a real situation
3 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likes😁
0 likes@DroppedInBase you are so good at trolling lmfao
1 like25 is obvious as long as you have done basic trigonometry
1 like😂 😂 😂
0 likes@Link Link. Yeah right... but you definitely need math to calculate the no of '🤮' u get on your dishes
2 likesLmfao
0 likes@Link Link yeah exactly, the higher grade math classes are only beneficial to some professions, unlike the other core classes which you can at least argue it helps with your general knowledge of the world. Once you get past basic algebra schools should let you take classes more related to the field you want to work in, or more beneficial classes like personal finance
0 likeseven u know math, this question is TRICKY
0 likeswhat a moron
I completely doubt I’m gonna be on a game show later in my life
1 like@Link Link everything in this world is maths lol you can't cope out
3 likes@Jay WhoLovesEveryone optimism
0 likes@Rage Man yeah same and i love maths (like the weird child goblin i am)
0 likesThe answer most HS math teachers want to reply: "You probably won't, but perhaps some smart student will."
0 likes@Obed Ulloa True. Very true.
0 likes@Jay WhoLovesEveryone autism
0 likes@Gamebuilder2000 ikr i do physics and i love applying the math there more than just doing math in math
0 likes@Frank Horrigan to show that not knowing math is more common than you think. Also this is a reply section and the guy can say what he wants.
1 like@Link Link You know... Chickens also don't need complex numbers, so they are useless
0 likesdoesn't everyone
0 likes@havok9001 don't worry bro, you're doing better than most people it seems.
0 likes@Cool Terra will im disable & i been told from my mom that if any bully try put me down by name calling or so that i can use few words to make that bully fell like crap
1 like@Link Link
1 likeHey, well see who's laughing when you need to make a special triangular cake that fits in your square pan.
@Link Link cooking need math calculation too
0 likes@Crazy Eyes xD
0 likesthe question was worded poorly.
0 likesit's not about if you use it but making it easy.
0 likesI think the audience got it wrong because they thought you could use complex numbers and a lot of them were thinking 16 = 5^2 + (3i)^2
8 likesReplies (2)
I get the joke, but 5^2 is 25. Now you have to come up with an idea how that is smaller than 16.
1 likeDefinitely
0 likesHey there, I am from Bangalore and after analyzing why the audience went with the option A was because they thought that 16 was the only option out there whose square root was a perfect square number and could give the least value among all. Very unfortunate to the man at loss. Interesting thing is that I got to know that he incurred so much loss after a span of 15 years where he could have even forgotten about the incident.
9 likesReplies (5)
I mean i know why i went with 16 despite knowing math is the phrasing of the question. i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 . Even if this seems like it should just be the same as products sometimes they are tricky and sadly in the inverse that phrasing went into the opposite direction
5 likes@Rune Norderhaug I agree with you on this point. Sometimes things are harder than they seem.
0 likesThe audience was definitely NOT thinking anything like that.
3 likesThey were probably thinking 7+9=16, and didn’t know that 7 is not a square number. They are the product of American public education, and most would probably lose a game of tic-tac-toe to a chicken.
I'm from Bangalore too lol
0 likes@Jar Jar Sphinx if they thought that sum meant multiply then 16 would be correct.
0 likesI felt stupid for a lil bit there, too, though 😂 I was like "It's none of these, the f*ck.. 16 is 8+8, 8 is not a square number. 36 is 18+18, 18 is not a square number. B and D can't be, cus no same two numbers add up to an odd one (it'll have to be .5 number)."
2 likesAnd the it dawned on me 😅 I still don't know why I initially went on with the logic of having to use the same numbers..
But still, this being a 16,000$ question is crazy. I could have had it as a problem in my 7th grade maths test lol
When math anxiety kicks in...
26 likesThough this is an easy and common example, mental math is tough.
If you can, take your time, write your thoughts so you don't have to juggle informations in your short term memory.
Replies (1)
It’s better if you’re practiced in those calculations.
1 likeAt first I was wondering why such a basic math problem is worth $16K but after seeing the audience answers I now know.
1 likeI like how the host was so surprised on how the audience can’t math that she went as far as to hint the poor guy to use another lifeline.
18916 likesReplies (79)
I was thinking the same thing. "You have other lifelines you can use". I was like damn, she knows what 9 + 16 is, the audience doesn't.
1101 likes@J Fast Well, she has the answer, so hard to tell if she'd be able to answer the questions she's asking.
267 likes@Chuck Movies She may or may not have the answer at the time of the question. It's pretty safe to assume that she knew the answer even in the case where she was not given the answer because it was particularly easy to solve if you actually took the time to math it out.
417 likes@Chuck Movies No she doesn't. On Who Wants to be a Millionair, the host can see the correct answer only when the contestant has given their final answer.
395 likesShe knew, clearly, but she didn't have the answer on her screen.
@Chuck Movies they don't, it can cause trouble if anyone wants to cheat
73 likes@Chuck Movies She doesn't have the answers
23 likesfor the host to have the answer would help the contestant. even if the host doesn't intend to cheat, they would likely reveal something unintentionally with their body language.
57 likes" when are we ever gonna use this in real life?"
13 likesTeacher when you're somehow 1 in more than 1000 that gets in this game or when u go through all the bs to become engineer 😝👌
Jokes aside we should have at lrast this level of math
@Lokesh PATEL it's pretty fair to assume that zero is out, otherwise all the answers would be trivially correct.
97 likes@Lokesh PATEL I'm not quite sure I know what you mean, but actually the fact that they have to be smaller rules out the solutions with zero anyway, as, for example, 16 is not less than itself, so 0 + 16 = 16 is not a valid solution.
77 likes@Ninesquared81 I guess that also rules out A. as the sum of 5^2 and (3i)^2.
15 likesThey hint towards using other lifelines all the time
5 likesYashwanth M R tricky question, i was think lowest common denominator shit. Either way no one uses these questions in day to day life. We got bills to pay and knowing that equation not doing much for it
1 like@Lokesh PATEL The questions asked "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers" 16 is not smaller than 16
47 likes@Dreams you get paid more money if you work a job where you have to know the equations tho
13 likes"can't math" guess some one can't english;
7 likes@James Denwitch You? "Math" is very commonly used colloquially as a verb, lol.
18 likesthey are trolls
1 like@Lokesh PATEL has to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. 16 is not smaller than 16, so 16+0 are not two smaller square numbers.
18 likes@SeeMyDolphin You know Mathematics is a difficult subject no matter where one lives and no wonder very few would think of majoring in it.
2 likesHowever the benefits of majoring in Math far outweighs the difficulties of the subject at the Undergraduate and the graduate level.
However I would encourage the young ones not ton be deterred by the problems that the subject poses to their career aspirations.
1 likeIn fact one wants to work in Engineering or the Airport one has no choice than to do well in Math to some extent.
This advice is worth the price in Gold.
1 like@Lokesh PATELthe question said that the number had to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers, and as 0^2+4^2 has the number 4^2, which is not smaller than 16, you are wrong
10 likes@Lokesh PATEL I thought the same thing! I would have sue the show for that and bring my fifth grader to do the mathematical proof if need be for extra style point.
0 likesYou're reading too much into that, she just was supposed to say something like that anyway.
0 likes@Chinese Spaghettio So you sue the show because you can't read the question, or because you can't do math? Hopefully the fifth grader you are bringing can tell you 16 isn't smaller then 16. Better spend your money on some math classes rather then a lost court case.
16 likesYashwanth M R Especially when there’s mo time limit.
0 likesI wouldn't be able to do math even if my life would depend on it...
1 like“can’t math” lol
1 likeThe majority of the people are so clueless about mathematics, better don't ask them for help.
5 likes@Lokesh PATEL "Two smaller square numbers" 16 isn't smaller than 16, last I checked.
8 likesThat wouldn't work. The question said TWO SMALLER SQUARE NUMBERS. In other words you can only add smaller numbers that are square numbers.
7 likesShe shouldn't have been surprised since it was only an American audience.
7 likes@Cubba Tell me
0 likes@AnnoyingMoose What's American got to do with it??
0 likes@J Fast you don't need time to math it out lol....You need 2 seconds at max
1 like@Honest panda 2 seconds is time..... Do I have to say if you take the 2 seconds to math it out? Or can I say if you take the time to math it out?
2 likes@J Fast no it isn’t easy. How am I meant to figure it out if I’m no good at maths
1 likeI just been spamming the like button on the comment because apparently I was the 6,800 like and if I unliked it would go back to 6.7 thousand. I never felt so much power
4 likes@[光学-s]M3KH what about english? I believe that least is spelled l e a s t not lrast
0 likes@J Fast There's nothing to math it out here....It's a disrespect to the term "math it out"
1 likeI am litteraly a math freak and I couldn't even understand the question
1 likeWow
0 likes@Honest panda sigh...... not everyone has that memorized. Some people do need about 2 seconds to math it out.
0 likesLol
0 likes@Lokesh PATEL I thought the same thing. That's probably why it was voted as the "correct answer" by the audience. I understand all the replies about 16 not being less than 16, but 16 isn't greater than 16 either... So it still works, it's just not the BEST answer given the choices. I think most questions on this show have only one correct answer, not a BEST answer, which is actually very different. I recall multiple choice questions being worded as "which is the BEST solution given the following problem..." Implying that more than one answer could technically work. Since 16 was the first option, & there's a time limit, you might not look at the other answers at all to check if another choice is a BETTER answer... If that makes any sense???
0 likesSometimes I feel the audience like to sabotage contestants on purpose.
1 like@Dreams well. That's how stupid people make their excuses :))
0 likesThe host is Regis Philbin.
0 likes@[光学-s]M3KH I would say that for calculus and some other related stuff, but knowing 3²+4²=5² could help you out in daily life (sometimes)
2 likes@Ace Lee True I actually like math and wanted to be a tutor while becoming an engineer likely for rollercoasters since I ride them a lot. But covid happened so I don't get to use math. Math started to feel unsatisfying when I'm not getting to use it. So I'm bringing it to physical life with robotics.
0 likes@[光学-s]M3KH I don't like math, but only because of calculus and stuff, I like daily life math problems, btw I wanna be philsopher/writer
0 likesI’m surprised at how you can’t English
1 like@Aaa um. That’s a problem with English then.
1 like@Liana Rodrigues-Almeida "16 isn't smaller than 16 but 16 isn't greater than 16 either". this is a logical fallacy. something not being greater doesn't mean it is smaller. that's why in coding u use x<y if u wanna mean x less than y & not x<=y (less or equal). if they wanted to mean smaller or equal they would simply say "smaller or equal" or "not greater". yes there can be better answers but the answer has to be right in the 1st place to be counted as one. for this question there literally was, just 1 answer. no multiple right ones that we can choose better/best from.
2 likeshttps://youtu.be/EgptHJ6by2o
0 likes"Can't math" lmao-
0 likes@Lokesh PATEL the question says the sum of two "smaller" numbers.
0 likesSqr root of 16 is 4.... so the other two numbers to use must be less than 4
So can't be 16.
@Ninesquared81 no. Zero can be used, it is a number. But the question says to use two smaller numbers. So if you use zero, the other number is not smaller.
0 likes@Liana Rodrigues-Almeida 16 is in no way smaller than itself. If question was rephrased as sum of two numbers which are less than or equals to itself then only A can be correct (and so will every other possible combination) but here only B is correct.
2 likes@Chuck Movies bro everyone who has a basic graduation should be able to answer that. At least without pressure like the audience. Not blaming the guy here, it can be hard to answer the simplest things jnder pressure.
2 likes@Lokesh PATEL Wow, you are so dumb that I can't believe it
0 likesThat shows the education level in USA 🙄
1 like@Aaa I am sorry but you're not a math freak then. It was immediately obvious that this question was about pythagorean triples. Unless you are not fluent in English, that would be more understandable then.
0 likes@PeterSansGaming well i have a math major but hey, a person whose name has gaming in it would know more i guess. Oh right, you dropped out
0 likes@Aaa didn't mean this as a dig but ok. Also I didn't drop out lmao I am studying CS at the 9th highest ranked university internationally and imo pythagorean triples should be trivial if you study a math intensive field.
0 likes@nero3700 than*
1 like@Gogetku Thanks for pointing that out, I'm trying to get better at that, so I should have known. English is only my 4th language, so I'm not that fluent with it.
0 likes@Rick Harlan idk what you are trying to point out. And before you r/whoosh me, purely imaginary numbers are already out of scenario as the real part has to be longer/bigger than the given number for sum of squares of a purely imaginary and a purely real numbers to sum to a real square.
0 likesO
0 likesSurprised he didn't catch that, "I don't know where your head was when you asked the audience ".
0 likes@Chuck Movies it's common knowledge
0 likes@Rick Harlan They really should've specified REAL numbers.
0 likes0^2 +4^2=16
0 likes@TimeGallon it’s a colloquialism
0 likes@Max MusterSpace What 9 +10 ?
0 likesmath is not a verb. Try harder.
0 likes@Alastair Green why… it’s just a colloquialism
0 likes@J Fast "I was like damn, she knows what 9 + 16 is, the audience doesn't." Because she is reading off the answer on her screen dude. I doubt she knows the answer either. lol
0 likesThis was more of a reading comprehension question than a math one
5 likesYou can feel the power when you answer the question correctly as a kid
16 likesAudience who know the right answer but still choose the wrong one to make him fail: " My goals are beyond your understanding"
8 likesSeeing this people makes me feel like i am god level in math even though i had failed past 2 math papers 😂
20 likes2:16 he had so much trust in audience that he was not paying attention to what she was saying and only realised the answer was wrong when he heard the wrong answer
10 likesmusic😂
You NEVER ask the audience questions like that. The only thing the audience knows with certainty are popular culture things. Still, I feel sorry for the dude. $15,000 is a lot to lose.
9444 likesReplies (96)
Bingo! Any question that requires thinking should never be given as an ask-the-audience lifeline unless it's your final lifeline. Then their answers should be considered very carefully.
312 likesThat's for sure, that's why equations with easy answers go viral on social media so much, because so many people are clueless on how to do them.
257 likesYou're right that 15k is a lot to lose but he didn't lose any money. He won $1,000.
37 likes@Jens Raab ya he won 1k. but the comment means if he would have quit he would win 15k. So he has NOT WON 14k. He didn't lose 14k from his pocket but he missed the chance to win it
74 likes@SmartPotato "So he has NOT WON 14k. He didn't lose 14k from his pocket but he missed the chance to win it"
15 likesThat is entirely correct, and I'm fully aware of that.
"the comment means if he would have quit he would win 15k."
It says "$15,000 is a lot to lose." implying an actual loss.
I get that many people would perceive unrealized gains as losses but I wrote my comment to stress that, while the missed chance is certainly vexing, the guy actually won a thousand dollars.
Any normal person would be overjoyed to "earn" a grand in just a couple of minutes. Hey, even most people making it to the show never make it to the chair so they go home with nothing.
$1,000 is a nice sum of cash.
Besides, the original comment was wrong in another way, too. He never had $16k for sure. If he had quit, he'd have won $8k, not $16k. So he only "lost" $7k if that is how you want to call it.
@Jens Raab yes most people will be overjoyed to earn 1k $. But More sad To lose 14k/7k $. Often pain of losing more Money is greater than happiness Winning lesser amount (comparatively lesser)
12 likes@SmartPotato But my entire point is that no money was lost here. There is a substantial difference between not winning a certain amount and losing that amount.
11 likes@Jens Raab Yes. I get your point.👍👍
17 likesBut my point is NOT WINNING is equal to Losing, even tho the lose is not from your pocket, the sorrow is same.
@SmartPotato Well, I fundamentally disagree. Maybe it feels the same to some but it is not equal.
8 likes@Jens Raab okk. Not everyone's opinions match 👍
7 likes@SmartPotato Just that this isn't an opinion.
4 likesNot winning money leaves you with the same amount that you had before. (And in this case the dude even leaves the show with more cash!)
Losing money leaves you with less than you had before.
It is baffling to me how anyone could claim that these two scenarios are equal and somebody disagreeing simply has a different opinion.
But this conversation is now going in circles. I'm out.
He actually didn’t gained it
2 likeswdym sorry? he deserved losing that for being so low iq
1 likeHow did he lose 15,000? He lost 0$ (well, he lost the travel cost for coming to the show).
2 likesHe lost 14k because at the moment he had the choice to keep it or not, he chose to risk it. He already won 15k but he chose to bet them. I did go to casino a few time and at some point you need to realize you only win when you keep the gain (its obvious but when you're at the casino you may want to play your gains more often than not), and the gains are your money, not potential money. It's potential money only if you keep gambling
5 likesBut you could say he lost nothing compared to the beginning. BUT at the beginning he didnt already won some questions, there were uncertainty. He then won the questions so he went at a better position. And then screw it up
@Queta Arbuste You haven't won anything for sure in that show until you stop (either by choice or you answer a question wrong).
4 likesHis score wasn't at $15k but at $8k.
He would have won those $8k had he chosen to not answer the question and quit right there.
When he answered wrong, he left winning $1,000. He didn't lose any money.
@Jens Raab Ok I didnt know this fact. So to me he lost 7k, because he screw his chance to get 7k (and this chance is worth 7k)
5 likes@Queta Arbuste Losing an option to win is not equal to losing money.
4 likesHe left the show with $1,000 more than he entered it. It really baffles me that people keep talking of him losing money.
Yes, he could have gained more had he paid attention to his math teacher, but if adding $1k to my pocket within 20 minutes (or however long it took him to play through the first couple of questions) is losing money, then sign me up to "lose" money as my main job!
@Queta Arbuste dude, since when can anyone be on $15,000 in this show? There is no $15,000 on the ladder. It either $8,000 or $16,000. Like many here, I didn’t look properly at first. But he’s actually on $8,000. So he lost $7,000 (because he walked away with $1k. He was never on $16k.
4 likes@Jens Raab It depends on how you view the thing. Both assumptions are true to some extent, since 'having less money' is a comparison. To what we compare makes the difference.
2 likesI compare to what state he was in when he made the decision to continue, and at this point he could claim 8k
@scrumpymanjack Please read my reply to the comment following my first comment. I explain I didnt know this fact
2 likes@scrumpymanjack Do your mom and dad know the answer to this question?
1 like@Queta Arbuste At no point did he have $8k. He would only have had it, had he claimed it, which he didn't. (At which point, he couldn't have lost it anymore.)
2 likesOne can only lose what one has. He had the option of walking away with $8k. He lost that option.
Instead, he walked away with $1k more than before he started playing - therefore he gained money, not lost it.
I keep repeating myself. I'm out of this discussion.
Happy New Year!
@Queta Arbuste not did I. All good.
1 like@Margarita Magdalena 🇷🇺 to what question - the question in the show? If so, my mum no, and my dads dead so he wouldn’t be much use. I could answer it easily at home. With the pressure of the lights, cameras, audience and occasion, I would doubtless be too nervous to think straight. Why do you ask?
1 like@Jens Raab Jena, it’s all getting a bit boring now but, for the record, he DID have $8,000 already and officially to his name. So he did lose $7K. There really can be no argument about this.
4 likes@scrumpymanjack What about your mom? And do you think your dad knew it when he was alive?
1 like@Margarita Magdalena 🇷🇺 I already answered you regarding my mother. Your line of questioning strikes me as a little strange. Where are you going with this, if I may ask?
1 like@Margarita Magdalena 🇷🇺 ok, that was a weird thing to say. I’m leaving this thread. Goodbye.
1 likeHe didnt lose it. He never had it in the first place
2 likes@Obvious Schism yes, he did have it. He was on $8,000. If he had got up from his chair, they would have given him the $8,000, which he already had to his name.
4 likesIf you’ll recall the format, the host actually gives the contestant a check for the amount they just won (when they get up to the higher numbers). That’s a reminder that the contestants have the money as soon as they get the question right.
If you think you have to have the money in your pocket for it to count, then I guess you think that the money in your bank account isn’t really yours, either.
The fact that he only had that money to his name for a couple of minutes is irrelevant. He had it…and he lost it. End of story.
No! You cant loose what you never had! You could say that he ALMOST won $15,000
4 likes@Jens Raab correct!
3 likesThis comment section is a game of ping pong played by smart arses with to much time on their hands I think. And now that I went and regrettably read some of your comments about who has the more accurate description of the facts.. I fell into the same category 😜😂🤣
3 likesYeah better call someone who can do this task in 30 seconds when you alone cant do it in unlimited time. The only joker that could really help is either 50 50 or wait for fking audince for 10 minutes and they hopefully start blabbering between them
0 likes@Mr Bruh When high school graduates still don't understand pemdas.
0 likesTbf, that can't be anywhere close to the most expensive math error in history.
0 likesAudiences are stupid af
0 likes@Lava1964 very wrong, you may think this 'only' requires thinking. But not everyone know what it is, unless they taught (which is why we know that and consider it some basic maths. This subject doesnt just require thinking, but also math knowledge. There are most definitely a grown man out there who don't know what "square" in math is, meaning it does actually require knowledge/experience no matter how basic it is.
1 likeI think this is a high school question. If you are familiar with Pythagoras theorem calculations, you will know the number.
0 likesYes, also don’t ask an American audience to name any country on a map…
2 likes”I know Africa is a country…and Europe is a country…I’m gonna go with America *points to India*”
@Ronger "I'm gonna go to America" points to India
2 likesIsn't it the reverse of what Columbus did? 😁
@Ronger I had an American friend who could look at the empty world map and write the name of every 193 UN countries, I can do it too
0 likes@Ace Lee Sure, would be strange if there weren’t people in the whole country of the US who couldn’t do that, BUT, the US is probably one of very few countries in the world where you’ll easily find adults (who went to school) that cannot name a single country on a map, not even their own.
2 likes@Ronger that's epic in a bad way lol
0 likes@S R Correct 😁
0 likes@DynamicWorlds "Tbf, that can't be anywhere close to the most expensive math error in history."
0 likesI don't know if it's the most expensive math error in history but that time when NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because some moron used imperial units instead of metric ones might be a hot contender!
@DynamicWorlds I wanted to link an article by Ajay Harish but it doesn't get through. You'll find it if you search for "When NASA Lost a Spacecraft Due to a Metric Math Mistake".
0 likesHe didn't lose anything he still got a grand. He came with nothing.
3 likes@Channel Zero One well, if that’s the way you reason, I’m relieved you don’t work at the Fed.
1 like@scrumpymanjack What's that got to do with anything?
0 likesI don’t. That’s just kind is dumb. Unfortunate that the audience didn’t know though. Idk, whatever. I just feel like he should have known that. Well, he did well to get there and I don’t think I would have anyway so I guess it’s just unlucky. 🤷♂️
0 likes@Bob Darrick don’t underestimate the effect of being in front of an audience with lights and cameras on you. He probably could have answered this from the comfort of his own home. But when you’re in the spotlight, it’s very different. I don’t blame him at all, except that, in the same situation, I would have taken my $8,000 (which he had in the bank).
2 likesconsidering the fact that it was in 2007 also
2 likesNo math and no people skills / social knowledge either.
0 likesI totally agree, why would you ever think it's a good idea to ask the audience, who are also probably unprepared or have no time to think about it.
She told him not to go with the audience! But he was too dumb to even understand that after probably failing to understand what "square" means.
0 likes@SmartPotato If you ever invest in stock market you would not feel this way. One day your account is 10% up, the next day it's only 5% up, did you lose 5%? Nope, because you never sold it. It was never your money. There is a difference between an opportunity of winning X amount of money and actually having X amount of money in your bank account. Unlike cash, an opportunity must be actualized first and it has an inherent risk factor. In this case, the dude only had an opportunity of having 15k. He used the opportunity, took action, which did not bear fruit. But thus is the nature of opportunity. It was never 100%. You can only "lose" something if you have it and the dude never had the 15k. That is why "losing 15k" is not the right word. Think about this, if you buy a lottery ticket, you could win a million dollar and most of time, you don't win it. Would you say you lost a million dollar? No, because you never had the money.
0 likesAbsolutely, never ask a crowd to use logic
0 likesI guess 16+9=25 is a popular culture thing in China
0 likesI mean.... Should you really fell bad for someone who doesn't know 3rd grade maths?
0 likesit’s even more depressing to see that the audience doesn’t know basic math
1 like@Lava1964 It doesn't require thinking. If you know what a square number is you can just try stuff out until you find the right answer.
0 likesMaybe they purposely made him lose.
0 likes@Smart-ass Clever. Yes, you’re probably right.
0 likesThis comment leads to an interesting discussion that would not take place if the concept of opportunity cost was more widely understood.
0 likesyou dont lose something you never had
0 likes@Matt except that he did have it. To prove it, they give you a check after every right answer when you get higher up the ladder. That’s your check. End of discussion.
0 likes@SmartPotato not good at math himself
0 likesNot really. 15k is nothing if you don’t invest, even if you do invest that’s not going to even sniff generational wealth
0 likes@Jacob Bell this is a very silly comment. But if you really think it’s nothing, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and give me 15k?
1 like@scrumpymanjack majority of my money is in a s&p 500. I was not born rich or given an inheritance. I joined the navy as a corpsman, was stationed at horno as enlisted. I started investment after boot camp because I had a decent savings by my 18yo standards and wanted to see it grow. But while in California I bought bitcoin to buy drugs. I ended up making good money off that, paid my taxes and then invested that money because I know how fast a lump sum will go away if not invested. Even if I didn’t make money off that rare opportunity, I still was more than able to donate 500 a month before ever making money off crypto stocks which have no intrinsic value. But no I wouldn’t give anyone 15k at this moment because that’s a good portion of my savings. That’s reserved for emergencie, though as an hvac tech I really have no concern of being out of work regardless of the economy. My statement is true, people can inherent 100’s of thousands and waste it away within a couple of years. Investing in mutual or index funds is the most verifiable way to gain wealth for you and future generations. I recommend it but most people do not even have the means to invest
0 likes@scrumpymanjack actually if you have debt, then I say don’t pay it. When I said people don’t have the means typically date and rent takes up a big portion of their money. Unless your comfortable with homelessness, not paying monthly debt is really the easiest way to invest. So if you pay 500 in credit card payments a month, you could instead let that card go into default and invest that into a mutual fund. Focusing on spending happens also helps. America is not a country you should eat out in. You should eat in nearly every day — prep meals so you don’t have to cook every day. Also limit all alcohol and drugs consumption, except for psychedelics because they’re very cheap and rarely habit forming. You can read for yourself. Most stock brokers, economists and self made millionaires say mutual and index funds are the not way to guarantee growth. Investing in your own typically will average out to less than 7% and are taxed heavier if they’re short term investments. Capital gains tax for long term investments are considerably less taxing
0 likes@Jacob Bell dude, that’s a weird reply to my basic point that 15k IS a lot of money. Limit alcohol and drug expenditure? What’s that got to do with anything??? Sounds like you’re on drugs yourself!
0 likes@scrumpymanjack did you not read both? 15k is not a lot of money, it will go away extremely fast. You have to invest 15k, again still not enough to just put that much in a fund. You would also have to make monthly contributions
0 likes@scrumpymanjack people inherent several hundred thousand dollars yet are broke within a couple years. People will get in the nfl, win the lottery, but because they aren’t growing their money their money fades rapidly away. The second comment I made was just to say it is possible to limit your spending habits and allow debt to go to collections instead of paying monthly for debt; these instead could be invested monthly. What’s also nice about capital gains tax is you may not be taxed at all once you subtract the investment from the sum of your income and your gains, so long as it’s not greater than about 80k
0 likes@Jacob Bell just put it in an ETF that tracks the US stock market and forget about it for a decade or two - that would work just fine. In any case, it is a lot of money. It would make a difference to me, that’s for sure.
0 likes@scrumpymanjack most people would love to have that. But it’s nothing over the course of any a year. I’m just making the point that lump sum money is not valuable if you are not growing it
0 likes@Jacob Bell that’s a point worth making. Thanks.
0 likeslmao this reply section is literally arguing over nothing
0 likes@water I think that’s the function of YouTube comment section. Actually that’s the purpose of social media entirely
1 like@water I love to argue. I have to argue on here in order to avoid annoying my spouse. So I thank all of you for your help
0 likes@water I don’t agree!
0 likes@Matt Would you give me your month's earnings? By your logic, you wouldn't lose anything because you didn't have them one month ago.
1 like@scrumpymanjack a check is a promise of payment . he didnt have the money yet
0 likes@ε my job i punch into and pays me every week is exactly like a game show you are so right!
0 likes@Matt An income is an income. Doesn't matter if it's earned by working or won in a game.
0 likes@Matt so is a bank note, clever clogs. Are you going to tell me that cash isn’t payment, either.
0 likes@ε ur a dip shit u totally missed my point and im not going to explain it any further
0 likes@scrumpymanjack are you special ed too
0 likes@Matt you mean like you? Probably. Didn’t stop me doing well at university, though.
0 likes@scrumpymanjack pat yourself on the back harder. i guess they dont teach how to think outside the box at your special ed school
0 likesDon’t feel sorry for him, it’s his fault for not knowing basic maths
1 likeI don't feel sorry for anyone who is this bad at math.
1 like@mgoogyi exactly
2 likes@mgoogyi lol. Kind of a ridiculous statement…but it’s funny.
0 likes@Jens Raab clown get a life
0 likesThis man got absolutely trolled by the audience
13 likesI love how half of the equation is in the question already.
15 likesI also chose A at first, but I realized I didn't read the question carefully. Luckily before he found out, I realized he/I was wrong.
3 likesIt's okay, even more than half of the audience didn't know maths
3 likesIt's one of the questions asked as mental aptitude in class 7 or 8 school student in India . Even such silly questions are asked only when limited time is given to solve at maximum 1 minute
6 likesunderstanding what the question is is harder than solving it lmao
4473 likesReplies (361)
it's VERY simple. get your brained checked tobi
169 likes@tie yeah it's extremely simple once you understand what the question even is... my point stands
1244 likes@Tobi "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?" how is that hard to understand?
132 likes@tie I don’t understand can you explain
486 likes@Petru Casella shouldn't have skipped elementary school English class
50 likes@tie ok einstein
715 likes@tie Well, since you can’t explain it, seems that you know all too well what’s hard to understand about it..
691 likes@Noob at Redstone “Noob at Redstone” how severe is your autism
2 likes@tie guys i found Roger Waters's ego
206 likes@tie The issue is that English is my third language, first been Italian and second Spanish. Another thing that doesn’t help is the wording of the question, it’s a bit confusing. When I understood it, the answer was pretty logical.
512 likesIf you had read the statement of Pythagoras theorem and done some questions related to it, it was just nothing
13 likes@tie 🤓
216 likes@tie haha ok nerd
211 likes@tie Still can't explain it though
191 likes@Petru Casella Every possible answer was a square number. The question was what two smaller square numbers equal one of the numbers in A, B, C, or D when you count them together. It can be expressed like this x²+y²=z. The answer was 25 because 4² is 16 and 3² is 9. So this 4²+3²=25 or (4*4)+(3*3)=25 was the answer to the question.
311 likes@tie It's not well articulated. It should have said "squared" in the second part of the sentence
207 likes@tie Your attitude is a mess. I feel sorry for your partner… if you ever get one.
4 likes@tie fuck you, language barrier is also i thing
1 like@tie "brained"? Looks like someone skipped kindergarten and now wants to play smart to feel less like an idiot. If it's approval what you're after, this isn't the place tie. Don't try to play teacher with us because you suck at it and if you were a real teacher you would get fired within the first week because of how unqualified you are. Wouldn't even get hired in the first place. Can't even call you a retard because that would be an insult to actual retards, so let's just go with stupid.
1 like@smort your name is literally a misspelling of "smart", not reading your paragraph by the way
6 likes@smort the only thing that's stupid is you after you typed up a paragraph about a youtube comment you felt offended by
1 like@tie k
84 likes@tie who shit in your cornflakes?
2 likes@tie nearly two days later still hasn't explain what does the question mean after being challenged.
134 likesLol actual brain dead moment
@James Sumner lmao you’re really counting the minutes until it’s been two days for some pedantic lowlife reason. How do you even know that it’s nearly two days? Because it only says 1 day ago… anyways I’m not going to spoonfeed you the explanation when the game show articulated it perfectly as is… if you have reading comprehension problems just say that James 😂
0 likes@tie "Not reading your paragraph by the way" -tie not to long ago
73 likesThen processes to write a paragraph himself lol brain dead moment part 2
Edit: I think he deleted his reply after he read my comment I don't see the reply on my end.
He said, "Imao you're really counting the minutes until it's been two days for some pedantic lowlife reason. How do you even know that it's nearly two days? Because it only says 1 day ago... anyways I'm not going to spoonfeed you the explanation when the game show articulated it perfectly as is... if you have comprehension problems just say that James 😂"
@James Sumner haha ikr
8 likes@tie you're an absolute loser lmao
1 like@tie The way the question is structured is what makes it tricky. In my head I thought it was 16 because 4x4=16, and 4 is a smaller square, i.e 2x2. "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
151 likesNotice how 'square numbers' appears twice, so my brain immediately associated both times it was mentioned with numbers with 16 and 4, respectively, because a square has 4 sides. At the same time, my mind associated the phrase "the sum of" with "made up of", which if true would mean that 16 is the only correct answer, since neither 5, 6 or 7 are square numbers.
@tie You think ur smart, but ur just an asshole.
2 likes@James Sumner nope, my reply is still up. And the fact that you had it copied and pasted proves you did more than just read it. Also, your very poor English is probably why you couldn’t understand a 6th grade math question
0 likesI didn't understand what "Sum of two smaller square numbers" was asking, to be honest, and assumed the wrong answer.
27 likesYou can reword the question more simply by saying "two numbers , each squared, can get which of the following answers?"
36 likesThough you leave out a little information phrasing it that way , it's easier to answer rephrasing that way, imo.
@Tobi you are not as smart as you think you are. If you haven't realized this yet, you are even dumber than you can imagine.
0 likesTook me a few decades, many humbling experiences, and quite some educating myself to figure that one out, but let it sink in for another 10-20 years.
@Kory Ogden that rewording is pretty bad too. It doesn't tell you that the operation is addition, it could easily be confused with multiplication, "get" isn't a mathematical term, "sum" is, it implies addition. In my opinion the original wording is fine as it is, but those who have difficulty understanding it are probably just visual learners...
25 likes@Noob at Redstone could you explain why it’s hard to understand? I honestly don’t see it
5 likes@tie bro is toxic 😂
58 likes@Tobi are you dumb? "its VERY simple" WAS referring to the question phrasing. I mean... how ELSE would you have phrased it then?
0 likesIt's crazy how far teens will go, to avoid admitting they're just... below average.
@tie you're actually such a loser bro
1 like@First Name Last Name Hmm, I guess it might be related to the order in which the information is presented. Saying “perfect square” instead of “square” might fix it
2 likes@tie wow insane you were able to construct a sentence that wasn't intended to just be hurtful without any other motive. Congratulations
55 likesyeah, i'm like, no option is correct. zero is the correct answer??? 0^2 + 0^2 = 0, but zero's not smaller than zero!!! my interpretation was, take a smaller square number, add it to itself, that sum will equal a square number. i realized what the question is actually asking about halfway through
2 likes@tie Tell me you're a dickhead without telling me you're a dickhead 😂
1 like@tie just explain the question lil bro
23 likesIt’s literally just the Pythagorean theorem
4 likesShepherdSaint yes but when you hear square numbers you don’t think of 5 or 6 do you?
5 likes@Judanji You all can talk the big talk but really Judanji's the one who can explain the question so props to you
12 likes@Sad Can Which most people have better things to do then study that. Not sure why it's a shocker that most people don't know it because most people don't give a fuck
3 likesYea at first i was like 1+1 = 2, 4+4 = 8, 9+9 = 18, etc...and then i realized they dont really need to be the same number added together they could be different
10 likes@Novamonster, Thanks to you brother, i finally understand it.
14 likesThe question embedded a false condition to my head that the number should be the same as the square root of its original number, as for 36, (3²=) 9 + (3²=) 9 = 18 (wrong, no other squared roots), for 16, (2²=) 4 + (2²=) 4 = 8 (wrong, no other squared roots), for 25, cannot use 5 because its not a perfect square, but 25 has still have other perfect square which is the (3²=) 9 + (4²=) 16 ≈ 25.
Just sharing my understanding guys, i find it hard too, that's why i'm glad to learned it and share it hahahaha
@tie every one here is confusing with the question
16 likesplease explain to us, ive read all your comment still no explanation
@Noob at Redstone which of these numbers can be written in the form of n^2 =a^2 + b^2 ?
3 likesYeah this is pretty concise and comprehensible.
It would be easier to understand if they reworded the question to make it say perfect square numbers.
4 likes@tie Im smarter than you
20 likes@Pedro jafarias Otávio you really got him there
9 likes@Nibbles Yeah, that would’ve been better. Maybe add that n, a, and b are integers too.
1 like@tie It's easily possible someone who has been out of school for a long time might not remember what a "square number" is. Unlike a lot of other basic math, it's not really a thing that comes up in real life much for the average person.
10 likes@Trip Fontaine okay but OP said he could already solve the question...
0 likes@tie I love how you try to act smart but still make the most idiotic responses here 💀
1 likeAnd literally everyone just agrees on it, so don't even bother denying that...
@Quarlie what responses were idiotic?
0 likes@tie that one for example
8 likes@Quarlie you just proved yourself to be the idiotic one
0 likes@tie Everyone is just asking how you would reword it. I'm pretty sure it'd take less time that hating on them for saying you should explain your point.
18 likes4 x 4 = 16 also = 9 + 7 (7 not square number)
13 likes5 x 5 = 25 also = 16 + 9 (BOTH square numbers)
6 x 6 = 36 also = 25 + 9 + 2 (2 not square)
7 x 7 = 49 also = 36 + 9 + 4 (all square but question prefer smaller numbers)
@tie "get your brained check" really sounds right and it shouldn't be "get your brain checked". the latter sounds very wrong.
15 likes@Don't Delete thank you but i wrote neither of those
1 likeIt was easy but the question should have been like this " which of these numbers happen to be the sum of squares of two smaller number
8 likes@tie it's easy for the English speaker to understand the question with no difficulty but it's tricky and hard for non-English speakers.
14 likesFor example, you wouldn't be able to understand fully the same question if it was asked in a Little bit of a tricky way in Mandarin Chinese.
@Kd Fr1 36 + 9 + 1 does not sum up to 49, but to 46.
3 likesAlso the Question says "sum of two numbers".
My approach was simply to list all sqares in my head and then sum up two of them like this:
1²=1, 2²=4, 3²=9, 4²=16, 5²=25,... (realy just "calculated" 1, 4, 9 since 16, 25, 36, 49 already in the answers)
summing 1+4, 1+9, 4+9 does not get 16.
summing 1+16, 4+16, and there it is 9+16 =25.
The answer is B. Final Answer.
@IchbinderB I miscalculated 😅
1 likeyou just have to know some simple pythagoreic numbers such as 3, 4, 5 and its multiples
0 likes@tie when it says the sum of two smaller square numbers it makes it seem like the two smaller numbers have to be the same number when you can have two different small numbers. That part of the question should be made clear.
10 likesEnglish is not my first language and I understood the question immediately so what's your excuse?
5 likes@SlayzGhee the f is wrong with you? Was I talking to you, fkwit ?
0 likes@tie ok explain it then ya fkwit
0 likes@KakaCarrotCake good for you me and 500 other people think differently than you. Crazy right? Open your mind sir not everyone thinks the same exact way
8 likes@tie
9 likesThere's an instinctive assumption that the two smaller square numbers were the same. BTW, you don't have to be obnoxious about it. I figured it out but it took a minute. This guy is under pressure and cameras are pointed at him.
I’m sure a million people attempted to explain it before me, but fuck it, here i go. So it is simple to understand in my opinion if you do know and remember basic math. The answer is 25, because as a start it is the square of 5 and that we can get through adding up 16 and 9 which are the squares of 4 and 3. 16 and 9 are the numbers in question and they are the only squares smaller than 25 that can add up to exactly 25.
3 likes@Tobi that's it? Your excuse for not knowing basic math? You want my little sister to explain to you?
4 likes@Petru Casella it's cuz the sum of 3^2 and 4^2 is 25.
1 like@Ollie Ox if it took more than 10 seconds to understand, i really don’t know if there’s any hope for you
0 likes@tie
0 likesWOW!! Wait, let me guess ... "small man's syndrome" right? You were a little guy, maybe a math whiz, and you felt you got picked on as a kid and now you can't let it go and now go around being an a-hole on YT comment threads, huh?
Good for you - don't let me stop you. (I doubt I could stop you in any case - even if I gave a f*ck.)
@Ollie Ox holy deuce! the psychoanalysis came through! the results are insane! 100% projection from little ollie, petite as an olive!
0 likes@tie
9 likesHit a nerve, huh? Sorry. I don't actually go around picking fights with strangers online. I'll have forgotten this video and you before dinner. So enjoy yourself.
@Ollie Ox they used to call you olive right
0 likes@KakaCarrotCake are you okay dude?
4 likes@Tobi why are you manically obsessing over this thread and fantasizing about someone’s puberty? You are disturbed
1 like@Tobi look at tobi the dummy, gonna cry?
2 likes@KakaCarrotCake ? What are you on about, if you need help or need to talk to someone there are resources available
4 likes@Tobi “it’s my thread” lmao that sounds so pathetic. And I only reply when someone writes to me, like this. Just being courteous
3 likes@Tobi you sound extremely upset. Take a little walk and then reply again saying you’re sorry
3 likes@Tobi people gave you likes because you’re an NPC just like them. The fact that you’re bragging about internet points and having a meltdown in a comment section proves that you are in dire need of professional help
1 like@Gus this is how I interpreted it as well. It was only after I did the math (which admittedly did not take very long) that I realized the two smaller squares did not have to be equal (none of the options would have worked under that interpretation).
1 likeI didn’t understand the question. And I have a phd.
2 likes@tie You do realize not everyone speaks English right?
9 likes@VIC I think the difficulty is understanding specific math terms in English by people who learned math through different teaching methods in other languages. I must also add how English is a poor language that loves to gather several meanings in a single word, which in my opinion makes it difficult to express itself through language.
1 like@tie of course its "simple". Its a trivia game and when you are schooled in pythagorean theorem or at least know what squares are, you will figure this out much faster. Good for you though, you won't be forever solving numbers in your life 👍
0 likesedit: reading your comments, you seem to be a toxic cringelord. someone obviously hurt you lmao
@lx i love it when the NPCs completely miss the point and pile on people because of mob mentality. so interesting
2 likes@Petru Casella common w
0 likesThe two smaller squares are:
2 likes3 x 3 = 9
4 x 4 = 16
The sum of 9 and 16 is 25
if you're 7 yo level of comprehension yes
1 like@Kory Ogden Broo ofcpurse they can make it easier for you lol thats not how the world is ever gonna work moron
0 likes@Ollie Ox ITS 2 NUMBERS... WHY WOUKD YOU ASSUME THE SAME NUMBER? YOU UNDERSTAND SAME NIMBER TWICE ISNT THE SAME AS 2 NUMBERS LMFAOOO
1 like@Victor Zehan
7 likesWhy are you yelling, Victor? It's not personal. It's just a little math problem on YT. All I said it that the wording of the question is somewhat vague and can lead to a misleading assumption. That was, very likely, intentional.
I did, in fact, solve the problem in my head - it just took about 30 seconds or so longer than it should have. Having 49 as an option threw me off.
@Dustin bruh you call him einstain because he has elementary school knowlege of maths and english, it says a lot about how educated you all are. I am not even a fluent english speaker and i can understand the question so why is that a problem for people who speaks englisb everyday? I guess you are just uneducated in maths.
0 likes@tie bro just leave us dumbasses. Go off and sit on your throne of intellectual magnificence and leave us peasants of intellect to grunt and drag our knuckles
0 likes@Judanji Thank you for explaining it more thoroughly than a guy who has a big ego saying he knows the answer but cannot explain to everyone and goes to attack everyone.
4 likesI also want to point out that tie needs to learn what "IMAO" means. IT LITERALLY MEANS "in my arrogant opinion"
4 likes@tie jeez bro simple shit CAN be hard for some people? not everyone’s gonna be as smart as you
4 likesIkr. The question is intentionally convoluted. I had to think for a while to figure out what is being asked. The math part is elementary.
2 likeswhy is everyone killing @tie, the wording of the question is so simple and so is the solution. Anyone with basic maths knowledge should probably be able to solve it
1 like@tie wow, you dunked on his obvious joke of a comment, whoop-de-f*n-do!
1 like@Petru Casella I think it is square of small numbers ie 1square + 2 square= 5 and option b is square of 5 is 25
0 likes@tiewhat point are you trying to prove 🤔
1 like@Mathew M evidently from the first comment that the wording is not hard to understand
1 like@tie
3 likeswhat they meant is that at first glance the question sounds confusing when it's not
Instead of hyping yourself up over the most basic things, how about you work understanding subtext without having it be explained to you?
One could even say this skill is as basic and commonplace as the skills needed to answer the question in the video.
Cheers, get a life.
@boar r/who pissed in your cereal
0 likes@tie thank you for letting us know you use plebbit
3 likesIt brings everything together quite nicely
@boar your incapability to recognize the spoon-fed irony in "r/who pissed in your cereal" brings everything together quite nicely
2 likes@tie Google irony for me real quick, you dont actually seem to know what that word means.
0 likesOr grab a dictionary, maybe after you expand your vocabulary a bit you can come up with something original.
Cheers, get a life.
@boar didn't want to say "post-irony" but that's what I meant.
1 likeCheers, get a life.
@tie
9 likesIrony and post-irony are two fundamentally different things, the "post" prefix isn't there just to look pretty, but sure buddy.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thank you
If you'll excuse me I got work to do, keep parroting after me if you'd like
The question should have been worded "Which of these SQUARED numbers happen to be the sum of two DIFFERENT square numbers"
3 likesI feel the one who wrote that question is analphabet
And the rewording comes from me, an Spanish main
I just realized "Sum" is ambiguos, which should be fixed as well, it could mean the result or the operation after squaring... Wow, there's so much wrong with this.
Nevermind this comment
@tie Look the crybaby who talks about getting a life.
0 likesYou're the one who should get a life, you embarrasing jerk
@Luís-Sophus-822 aren't you the guy who referred to your first language as "Spanish main" like it's a video game? Lol
0 likes@tie Them: “Can you explain?”
6 likesYou: mocks
Okay, so you can’t explain 🤣
which of these numbers is the result of adding two square numbers smaller than the result
0 likes@tie there’s a reason why mathematicians don’t use words and use equations. Go back to ur liberal arts degree smart guy💀
0 likes@Alhimik
0 likesGreetings, Alhimik. It's as easy as that: the answer to this question is 25.
We first need to define what we mean by square number. A square number is a number that is the product of itself, and an important property related to this expression is that the square of a number can be expressed as a power of two. This means that we can write square numbers using power notation, for example, 4 can be written as 2^2, because 4 = 2 x 2. Knowing this, we can now find the set of square number solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's set ourselves the task of proving that two smaller square numbers will sum up to the given number, that is: n^2 = m^2 + k^2 where m and k are defined square numbers.
Taking the square root of both sides, we have that n = sqrt(m^2 + k^2).
Thus, in order to find out when this will be true, we must solve the equation sqrt(m^2 + k^2)|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I myself lean to this answer a bit and say that the answer is 49 because we know of a few general rules with squares.
Two of the rules we need are the ones to do with multiplication, the square of the square root of a number, and the square of a power, that is to say:
(√n)^2 = n
n^2 = n*n
The next rule we need is the perfect square theorem.
The perfect square theorem states that:
a^2 = b^2 + c^2
Using the results from the above equations, we can set up a function which takes a square number and calculates the sum of its square roots.
This results in an expression of the following form:
c^2 = n^2 + (√n)^2
We can solve this expression for n by using the square root, which gives us:
n = c + √c^2
By rearranging the previous equation, we are able to get an alternate form, which will be useful to us to prove our expression, and that is:
√c^2 - c = n
By squaring this expression, we end up with:
c^2 - 2c + 1 = n^2
Now, the only step left is to find the numbers c that satisfy the above expression when squared.
We can find such a combination by finding the c-intercept of our equation.
To find the c-intercepts, you will need to solve the equation c^2 - 2c + 1 = 0, which can be done by the quadratic formula.
We then have two possible values for c, which are -1 + 2i and -1 - 2i.
Now, we need to test if those values are square.
The square of -1 is 1, and the square of 2i is -4.
Using the perfect square theorem from earlier, we can conclude that the sum of these squares is indeed 49.
Therefore, this proves that 49 is uniquely the sum of two square numbers.
The equation for 49 can be found using what we discovered above.
49 = (-1 + 2i)^2 + (-1 - 2i)^2.
You can test that this is indeed correct by multiplying out and simplifying.
However, there exists a faster way to find the equation.
We can rearrange things to get what we already know: 49 = c^2.
We can solve the expression by using the square root, which gives us:
c = √49.
@tie just explain it to them instead of being a baby
6 likes@Alhimik Yes, I was thinking exactly the same thing. The wordings are not specific enough. The moderator should add comments like "the smaller square numbers can be different from your choice answer"
1 like@Petru Casella dude really ?
0 likes@I offend Gays This !
0 likesHow should humanism work
@tie it's ok bro these people who are answering you are the same 50% NPCs who answered A
2 likes@Tobi yeah but it's very simple... my point stands get your brain checked tobi
1 like@tie i dont understand and i havent skipped elementary school english classes, help
1 like@Alhimik Yeah, same for me.
1 likePeople arguing in the comments about the question being not understandable are so DUMB ,and they have never opened a maths book in their life .
1 like@MASTI TIME dude explain to me calling us dumb and not actually giving us an explanation is kind of a d move no? If you could explain to me id love that
1 like@MASTI TIME if it were rephrased it's easier to answer. What's so difficult for you to understand about that?
3 likes@Petru Casella ti prego spiegami perché io non ci ho capito nulla
1 like@Petru Casella English is also my third language but I understand the question well, it means out of the four square numbers which one of these is the sum of another square numbers such as 25 is square of 5 and 25 is the sum of 16 and 9 which are also squares of other numbers (4 and 3)
0 likes@tie What a salty little bitch, someone literally asks you to explain and you just can't stop being an ass
0 likes@tie bro who hurt you aswell LMFAO
1 likeTbh the question should've said "squared" instead of "square" it's really easy to get lost in that kind of wording and on top of that everyone was timed
2 likes🍿
3 likesYeah I misunderstood as well!
0 likes@tie r/iamverysmart
4 likesYou dont even need to know english for this one
0 likes@Alhimik same lmao, I think should also be an answer
1 like@tie anything is straight forward once you understand it hindsight
1 like@Tobi
0 likesx²+y²=ans
ans=n²
@tie bro respectfully asked to explain and this mf retorted to insults like bro how petty can you be at this point?
0 likes@tie just because you can't understand a question immediately doesn't make you dumb. Screw off sherlock
0 likesI think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
3 likes@Kory Ogden SUM, NOT PRODUCT.
0 likesA×B=PRODUCT
A+B=SUM
what an uprovoked, asshole response 😂
0 likes@JudanjiThank you
0 likesat first, u think the question is stupid and false. Then you realise, the question asks which of the smaller square numbers sum to give the desired option. So out of 0,1,4,9,16,25,... only 25 satisfies 25 = 16 + 9. We cannot have something like 16 = 16 + 0, as 16 is not smaller than 16
0 likes@Kory Ogden your way of wording is more confusing than the original lol
1 like"each squared" just call them square numbers
"two numbers can get which of the following answers" two numbers what? the sum of two numbers? the product of two numbers? two numbers divided by each other?
@tie You still haven't explained the question to us. It's VERY easy, no?
1 like@tie bros a redditor i shouldve known
2 likes@Noob at Redstone You tell em
0 likesThe phrasing was extremely clear. Complaining about it just means you fail basic literacy in addition to math.
1 like@Blueberry Oatmeal well i learned how to spell pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis in second grade, means im the smartest human alive according to your dumbass logic
0 likes@tie “if you cant explain it then you dont understand it yourself”
2 likes@tie square number and square root make me confused, because English is my third language, and when i meet wording like two smaller square numbers i think about square roots, dont know why, so question is really confusing when they mix different descriptions -sum,smaller,square. But for native speaker it should be easy.
2 likesI haven't watched the whole video because I also wasn't 100% sure and I have passed intermediate calculus so questions like these are easy to compute if it is explained in way I understand it. I've never heard of a square number. If it is a squared number, ok then they are all numbers that have been squared. So, which squared number is also the number when adding together two smaller squared numbers.
0 likes1sq=1, 1+1=2
2sq=4, 4+4=8
3sq=9, 9+9=18
4sq=16, 16+16=32
5sq=25, 25+25=50
No smaller squared number "1,4,9,16,25..." added together equals the choices
So I don't understand the question either.
Also, nw that I watched it, how can a sum of two equal values be odd?
Even when I think, ok maybe the square number is actually the root:
sqrt25=5, 5+5=10. I don't get it still.
@tie I assumed for a guy as arrogant as you, you'd at least know what classes teach Math, English class doesn't teach math
3 likes@ZX agreed, the question wasn't well written.
1 like@Alhimik You articulated it well.
1 like@tie anime picture NPC 😂
0 likes@tie ego is through the roof rn wtf lol, you're not even that guy pal.
4 likes@Bread Buster ever opened a maths book? Have some common sense dude ,any science student who have studied maths can answer that sh*t,if you don't believe me show that to any of your high school teachers..
0 likes@Tobi same for you ...
0 likesI take it that you didn't get full marks in English class?
0 likes@Zachary Rollick bet you can't even spell pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis get outta here
0 likes@tie stop talking you fucking reject you're so cringe LMFAO
0 likes@tie pie
1 like@tie 🤓
2 likesWhy don’t you say you’re dumb? The question is in basic English and basic algebra.
0 likes@tie Nobody loves you.
0 likes@tie >"I only reply when someone is talking to me"
1 like>Proceeds to mock wording of a non native English speaker not talking to him
>"Hahaha you all are NPCs"
>"You refered to your first language like it's a video game"
The very definition of hypocrisy
What an annoying and pretentious redditor you must be, kinda feel bad for you having enough time to write your life story in this thread, unfortunately I can imagine the smell
@Austin Jones stop harassing me and my family
0 likes@tie when it said the square root of two smaller squared numbers I thought it meant two of the same squared numbers, the wording is more difficult than the actual math
1 like@Petru Casella i know im a month late but rephrased heavily:
1 likex²+y²=z²
where z is either 16;25;36;49
x and y are integers (whole numbers)
z>x ; z>y
@duck Yeah,
1 likex = 4 x*2 = 16
y = 3 y*2 = 9
z = x*2(16) + y*2(9)
z= 25
I think you made a mistake in the equation, it’s not (x*2 + y*2 = z*2); but it’s (x*2 + y*2 = z)
@tie then explain it since you know it so well lol
0 likes@Judanji the Fact YOU Were Willing To Explain Speaks Volumes About You Friend, I Hope You Are Doing Well
2 likes@tie Because It's Not Articulated Very Well. I Think Your the Manifestation of My Friends Ego. I Beat His Ass Because He Thought He Was Better Than Everyone Else Lmao
0 likes@Lux Arcadia strange bait from an account made minutes before you posted that comment
0 likesJust delete happens to be and place "is" and learn some math words. No thank to me.
0 likes@tie i think youre slighly autistic, though it may be a genetic problem past down. so do me a favour and pls stfu and arguing w ppl
0 likes@tie 🤓🤓🤓
1 likeBeing someone that learnt math in Spanish it was hard for me to understand the question at first, only now im learning mathematical terms in English and still get them mixed up or forget what they mean.
0 likesBut once I understood it, ez peasy.
@KakaCarrotCake terminology, someone that never learnt math in English may not understand terminology that is in English as they have never seen it before. Your comment if anything makes you seem more stupid by the simple fact you can not understand that simple fact.
0 likes@Manati Powa I'm not english, my first language is absolutely not english or anything related to english yet I understood the question easily. Facts has been told, points has been made it seems that the only one stupid here is you. Thanks for your participation you can walk out the same way you came here.
0 likes@tie no, i think he’s pointing out that it doesn’t specify if the two smaller numbers have to be the same
0 likes@KakaCarrotCake You are clearly retarded.
0 likesMy first language isn't English either, I learnt math 100% on Spanish and I never saw any terminology in English, only now im starting to learn the terminology, how the fuck would you expect someone who has NEVER had any contact with the terminology, know about it? Spanish math terminology is very different from the one in English.
You literally can't understand something as simple as that? Are you dumber than a 5 year old? Really?
@tie Don’t be a jackass. His point is spot on. The question is not worded correctly.
0 likesSimply put: a square number, which can also be achieved by combining two smaller square numbers
1 likeSo many sad, entitled egos in the comment section XD
0 likesI would say that If your parents beat you up in home after school nobody in the internet is at fault and you do not have to attack strangers for stupid reason such as math theories so you can feel better in your miserable life, you are as bad as grammar n*zis LMFAO
how i understand it is that 4 square is 16 and 2 square is 4, so my awnser would be 16...
1 like@Judanji oh, now i see
0 likes@tie: "*snort* it's so simple tho *snort*"
4 likesEveryone: "explain it then"
@tie: "erm... uh... I won't explain to you plebians, but just trust that I totally get it myself!"
@Gaia Rossi la domanda chiede "Quali di questi numeri quadrati è anche la somma di due quadrati più piccoli?"
0 likesIl ragionamento è questo:
Considero il caso in cui la risposta sia 25. Allora
x²+y²=25
Adesso devi trovare quel numero quadrato, che sottratto a 25, mi dia come risultato un altro numero al quadrato. Quindi ho 4 opzioni (sono tutti i quadrati più piccoli di 25=5²)
a) 1²
b) 2²
c) 3²
d) 4²
Ora escludo le opzioni a) e b) perché se li sottraggo da 25, i risultati non sono dei quadrati perfetti. Mi rimangono le opzioni c) e d) che sono entrambe corrette. Infatti se considero c) ottengo:
25-9=16
e considerando d) ottengo:
25-9=16
This question does not specify that the numbers, which the answer is the sum of, should be squares of integers. So every answer is correct.
1 like@Protostar waters' ego is smaller than this
0 likes@tie I mean like im from Finland so English is not my main language and still I can easily understand this question.
0 likes@tie ”its VERY simple"
5 likesProceeds NOT to explain it.
Shut it, we all know you don't understand it.
@Alhimik yeah the wording killed me. I’m not good at math anyway but once it hit me what they were asking it’s easy
1 like@tie you're a know-it-all that's not all that smart huh, and now you've been called out. Prick.
0 likes@tie is 4 which is 2^2 a smaller square number compared to 25 which is 5^2?
0 likesFirst, what are square numbers?
2 likes2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16
5^2 = 25
6^2 = 36
7^2 = 49
16 + 9 = 25
QED
The challenging part is doing this in your head.
@tie question is tricky! It can be misunderstood as "SAME square number sum".
1 likeSame when it said “square number” I didn’t know if it meant square roots or the product of a square root but if you actually understand the question it’s easy
0 likesConclusion: they should have worded the question better here is a better way to word it:
What product of a square root will be the sum of two other square roots when squared and added together? 16,25,36,49
This might also be confusing but imo it’s better than just saying “square numbers”
@Tobi both the answer AND the question were simple. A sum of two squares. What's a SUM? What's a SQUARE? These are things that third graders used to know. Now we live in an Idiocracy.
0 likes@father4996 They are officially called square numbers though
0 likes@Gruuvin1 bitch you can't even spell pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis without auto correct get on my level
0 likes@tie You can understand the question without jumping to conclusions as to why others may struggle more with it than you. For one, it's obvious you approach that question, of why people struggle with this, hoping to inflate your ego.
1 like@KakaCarrotCake I also learned English as a second language. However, everyone's understanding is different. Some people struggle more with comprehension, especially if the question involves terms they may not understand, applied at multiple levels. They have to deal with the sum of two square numbers making a third, and they may not understand what a square number even is, and they don't feel comfortable with words like "sum". Students struggle with understanding "word problems" all the time, even in college.
1 likeIf someone's basic math skills are weak, and they are for a huge percentage of people, they will struggle with understanding the question. Once they do understand it, they will see it as the trivial question it is. Regardless, your attitude is unnecessarily aggressive. Why be so hostile to someone you know nothing about? It would be better to see it as a chance to explain the question in different terms, since this can even help you see concepts more clearly, though not always.
@tie so bbygirl <3
1 like@tie "get a life" the irony LMAOO
3 likes@tie theres like 20 different things that could mean. specifically the word square as well.
0 likesLol I took calculus in University and the math there was easier to understand than the wording of this question. Whoever wrote it needs to go back and learn English. It's like one of those word problems that go "Timmy has 7 oranges and ate 3 bananas. How many pumpkins does Timmy have?" It just doesn't make sense.
2 likes@Kd Fr1 this helped me understand wtf was going on thx. now the question makes sense the way they said it
0 likesFor some reason I didn't know they could be different numbers added together. I thought they had to be the same.
2 likesIt was such an easy question
0 likes@The Ultimate Emeralds eat'a mah bauhlllllllllllssssss
0 likes@tieby your logic your name is literally a misspelling of tit.
0 likes@tie definitely american
0 likes@Judanji thank you
0 likes@Petru Casella I'll start from the basics, to make sure my message is absolutely clear. A square number is a number that is the result of multiplying a number by itself (a whole number in this case).
0 likesThe question states that, out of the four square numbers presented in the options, which one can be represented as the sum of two smaller square numbers. 25 is the answer, since it is both 5 squared (the square number of 5), and 4 squared plus 3 squared.
@Gruuvin1 If I asked you what the סכום of ארבע וחמש is, would you be able to answer me? No, because there's a near-garunteed chance that your native language is not hebrew.
0 likes@Dorol that has nothing to do with this video and this thread.
0 likes@Gruuvin1 It does, since most of the users who couldn't understand it stated that English was their 2nd/3rd language, and that they didn't learn these terms in English.
0 likes@Dorol They chose to compete on an English language talk show. I didn't choose to understand your ridiculous Hebrew conconction. Your example doesn't relate to the situation. At all.
0 likes@Dorol also, the gameshow contestant speaks English perfectly. So your concoction doesn't apply AT ALL!
0 likes@Gruuvin1 Oh, you were talking about the guests on the show. My bad
0 likesI assumed you were talking about the people in the comment thread
@tie no with the way they formatted the question all the answers are right
1 likethey shoulda said which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller but different square numbers
@tie ENGLISH IS CLEARY THEIR SECOND OR THIRD LANGUAGE DUMBASS
1 like@𓆟 I see
0 likes@tie REAL
0 likes@Alhimik 'sum' in terms of math has always meant addition, while 'product' has always meant multiplication. If the question was worded better then I feel even the audience wouldn't have been so confused by it. If people generally say they thought you were asking for a different solution then I think its the person who is giving the question who is at fault.
1 likeTobi I also didn't fully understand the question. I feel it was a hard one for $16,000
0 likes@ZXthat'd what I thought because the sum of simply the square numbers she mentioned in themselves (3 and 4) doesn't get you 25
0 likes@tie i have a degree in physics the maths ive done is significantly higher and harder than any maths you can scramble. And even i have no fucking clue what the question is asking.
1 like@Tobi it is simple. Which of these numbers is a sum of two smaller square numbers? How is that hard to understand? 4*4 + 3*3 = 25. Elementary school question.
0 likes@tie It is very hard to understand for people who did not study math in English.
0 likesWhat’s with people priding themselves that they knew the question and looking down on others who didn’t? What they don’t see is the problem with that.
1 likeAre you some kind of imbecile? Or do you deliberately like portraying yourself to everyone as an idiot to try and appear cool.
0 likes@Benny Jones appealing as an idiot makes life easier. Have you not heard of ignorance is bliss? Ponder that genius
0 likes@Tobi I find "ignorance is bliss" is often what idiots say to mask the fact that they have no control over any aspect of their life. It's quite sad really. Better to have no idea of what the problem is than have to confront the fact that even if I did know the problem there is nothing I can do about it. Fairly unfulfilling way to go through life, I guess this is why so many people are religious, they feel they can hedge their bets that things might be less depressing in the afterlife
0 likes@Benny Jones bro go figure it out, whatever your problem is... its not me
0 likes@Anttjuan Reid we just tryna have some fights that have no real world impact, leave us be <3
0 likes@tie 🤓
0 likesOhhhhh it’s just the phrasing that trips a lot of people up I wud say…we’ll at least for me. This is like an sat question where it’s pretty simple but they phrase it in a way that u think it’s more complex
1 like@ZX
2 likesThis! Thankyou, they worded the question incredibly poorly!
Same here, I didn't understood until she revealed the answer, I thought she meant those two smaller square number had to be the same numbers
1 like@tie lol everyone who disagrees with you just hates to admit they're stupid
0 likes@Tobi majority isn't always right. Remember, most of the audience picked A. You're just like them.
0 likesYeah fr I could not understand what it was asking and I’m usually really good at figuring out confusing questions. Like I got it eventually but being in that situation you’re gonna overlook things.
0 likes@tie dude. Get your superiority complex out of here please.
0 likes@Alhimik EXACTLY. Like yes sum means addition but I thought the exact same thing at first bc my brain just kind of overlooked that part.
0 likes@Tobi fr. I am so sick of these constant “well I can do it, so that means everyone can, and if you can’t well, then you’re inferior” attitudes everywhere lately. People want to boast about being smarter or superior, but it takes two seconds to realise that not everyone is the exact same way as you, and other people may do/understand things differently. Really speaks on their supposed “intelligence.”
0 likes@KakaCarrotCake dude they’ve stated multiple times they know the answer. Their statement was that the question was worded confusingly, which is not wrong.
0 likes@tie DO YOU WANT A MEDAL OR SOMETHING?? Omg guys look! This dude figured this out faster then everyone else! He must be the most superior being on the planet! Let’s worship him for we are all incompetent worthless fools compared to him :(
1 likeOr her* or them* idk
@tie oh yes, because everyone piling on you (which you’re also doing to everyone else….) is “mob mentality” and not because you’re being a massive prick.
0 likes@LORD_NOM_CONQUERS ALL because they’re being an asshile. Refusing to answer people who are confused, and dunking on people who are. They’ve got a massive superiority complex and it’s showing hard. Yours is showing a bit too in your comment. You can’t sit there and say that the question isn’t confusing, and is simple to understand, as that is factually incorrect because many people have stated it was confusingly worded. I have a basic understanding of math, and was able to solve it when I understood what it was asking, which I couldn’t at first BECAUSE IT WAS CONFUSINGLY WORDED. Some people have trouble in different areas of processing. Doesn’t make them dumb or inferior in anyway.
0 likes@Luís-Sophus-822 specifying it’s different helps, but I think I figured out a good rewording. All it does is change sum to “when added together” which yea, is what sun means, but it’s easy to overlook or forget that and that’s the problem word here. So “which of these (square) numbers can be created by adding together two smaller square numbers.” Much simpler, no?
0 likes@tagberlee get your empathy checked :)
0 likesShitting on people bc you perceive them as inferior is in fact actually small brain npc behaviour.
@MASTI TIME literally false. Keep at it with those assumptions though, that’s very smart moved of you.
0 likes@Kriegter it’s not really that, either. I’m ok w Math, and pretty decent at English. It’s that sum meaning addition is pretty easy to overlook or forget. This whole question can be solved by specifying addition in clearer terms.
0 likes@Zachary Rollick question was confusing to me too, and I was always top of my English class, and had a ton of extra English credits :) misunderstanding one thing doesn’t define you’re entire understanding of a language/subject.
1 like@Monkeeseemonkeedoo based
0 likes@Goku24 I want you to ask this to actual elementary kids. Doubt most of them will be able to answer it lmaoo
1 likeAlso before anyone says some shit to me about me leaving so many comments on this old thread, I don’t give a fuck. I guess this was the hill I decided to die on today.
0 likes16 can be also correct power of square root of 8 + power of square root of 8 is also 16. This question is just stupid.
0 likes@tie Trying to act smart but can't understand jokes lmao, you're that kind of guy that get rejected by everyone cuz useless and arrogant
0 likes@tie L's on you, i read this entire conversation and still you didn't bother explaining the question rather you'd just argue with people. This is how average 9 y/o's are like now. Grow up and get a life
0 likesMan, the amount of snobby redditor/4channer behavior in this thread is insane. Please seek therapy to learn how to better communicate to people.
1 like@Adrian Gołda A square number is defined as the product of an integer, i. e. a whole number, multiplied by itself. The square root of 8 is not an integer but a fraction. Therefore, your solution is false.
1 like@tie ☝️🤓
1 likethis thread is so funny lmao
1 like@tie This thread is too funny 😂
1 likeFull of people whose only source of joy is trying to one up against random strangers on the internet. Not everyone received your quality of education, and not everyone's first language is English. The nail on the coffin is that @tie is a Redditor. Go ahead, Mr. Intellectual, prove why all your haters are less of an intellectual than you!
@cuncunz14 The first ten square numbers are: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100. Which two of those numbers add up to one of the available answers?
0 likes@tie same reaction
0 likes@umbrella i agree it was so funny 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿thanks tie
0 likes@tie Can you explain? It's hard to understand what are you talking about.
0 likes@tie Someone that presumably only speaks one language insulting people that don't know English well... Classic asinine internet remarks
0 likesso true
0 likesA's in calculus, differential equations, matrix operations...then, I get this one wrong. I thought it was 16 because for some strange reason the question in my brain was: "which of these numbers is a squared number squared?" I didn't read the question properly!
0 likesEnglish is not my first language and I was also confused with this question. Although I understand the meaning of every word but put together in this question didn't make any sense.
0 likesAgreed. Especially under that kind of stress.
0 likesEnglish are my third language so I can agree. First Chinese second Russian third English. They make the wording difficult to understand
0 likesIf you didnt know enough english or were lacking in class. Square numbers could mean anything given whatever meaning you attach to it.
0 likes@Tobi Honestly, Tobi is the smartest one here in my opinion. And KakaCarrotCake has bad comebacks.
0 likes@MASTI TIME Can't you understand that some people aren't as smart as others? And stop calling us "dumb" because you didn't even explain and its pretty pathetic to scream "DUMB" in youtube comments.
0 likes@tagberlee So you support someone calling 50 different people dumb and not explaining his point in words and screaming unnecessary rude insults at others?
0 likesPathetic.
@Charlie May Films bro left 17 comments in a row 😭💀 only in Ohio will you find someone as desperate as this bruh only in ohio
0 likesJust unironically read through this entire comment thread for like 20 minutes and found out how much of a warzone they can be lol
0 likesI didn't understand it. I thought it was a because the square root of 16 is 4 which is also a square.
0 likes@tie Sorry but the question was very confusing
0 likes@tie you may be right but it seems like you have a big ego. It's not very likeable 😕
0 likes@tie Because people could read it as 'which of these square numbers (the squared number being 4) also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers that could be squared (2 * 2 = 4). Not saying this is right, but just to put in perspective how someone could interpret the question.
1 likeThey chose this question because it is tricky, or else why would they choose it? It's a game show that is meant to be made in such a way. It's clear that you have seen this question before, and that's why you understand it. Not because you're intelligent or anything lol.
I've seen this question before as well, but to those who don't I can at least understand why the way it's worded is flawed.
@tie YT users just discovering Ohio jokes I see…little late to the party there😬
0 likesPythagorean Theorem
0 likes4^2 + 3^2= 25^2
16 + 9 = 25
hey tie i still don’t understand, please explain
0 likesWtf r these replies
1 likeBro Tobi just wanted to say his opinion. He didn't ask u to reply...
0 likesU guys here fighting over a question and I'm here dying cuz of my final exam at MIT
0 likesNothing wrong with the way the question was phrased. 4 squared + 3 squared. Not sure how it can be phrased any simpler in my opinion.
1 like@smonyboy hard to explain just haven't seen the diction in a while, been a but since I've had to do math ya kno
0 likes@tie u don't even understand meme culture and internet culture in general
0 likesClearly u didn't go to school to get basic soft skills
@tie u r an ADHD learner
0 likes@Your Idol not most ppl
0 likesAll ppl here obviously have nothing better to do at the age when they study that
The problem in people’s minds is that they don’t seem to be familiar with the mathematical term “square number”. It means a number that is a square of another whole number. The fist few square numbers are as follows:
0 likes1; 4; 9; 16; 25; 36; 49; 64
Now, the question is which of the possible answers is the sum of two other square numbers. In other terms, which one is a number that can be a sum of two of the numbers I listed above. It is a perfectly phrased question with a very simple answer. Our guy should have payed attention in school.
It's not a big deal either way. There are far more important things to worry about than to worry about something that can be taught in 5-10 minutes. The amount of disrespect is more surprising than anything, and it's shameful.
1 like@tielol I don’t understand can you explain
0 likes@tie tbf I also misinterpretted the question as which of these squared numbers is made with another squared number. I'm hoping that's what they also messed up on not that they couldn't do math but instead failed to read just like me.
0 likes@tie I think this may be a little aggressive for a comment.
0 likes@tie I'll be honest I don't remember talking about squared numbers and roots in my english class, try math.
0 likes@Alhimik Agreed this was what I thought as well.
0 likes@Petru Casella nah they worded it like that to make an easy problem difficult to understand. english is a dumb language and that problem is one of the reasons why.
0 likes@tie I am very slow.
0 likes@tie If you're getting that salty over a comment you need to get yours checked
0 likes@ZX not really
0 likes@Tobi you are terrible at reading
0 likes@TheJohanster that is more true than you can know
0 likesThose of you arguing or putting down those saying it's hard to understand, yall are grasping at the only straws of intellectual you possess.
0 likesOK good for you, you can understand a badly worded math question.
By how hard or fast you are willing to jump at the argument, it strongly feels like deciphering math word problems is your only Forte in life.
Personally, I Excell at numbers, I could tell you it was "A" the melisecond it showed "A"
But I'm also smart enough to know that if putting down another's understanding of the wording or argue-flexing is all I got, then I don't have much.
I mean, think about it
@tie the fact that you don't understand sarcasm is a proof that you have no friends and life nerd.
0 likes@Bryce Prochazka
0 likesPeople who mock those who aren't very familiar with math concepts are also only discouraging those people from learning math at all, because it will only make those people view "math people" as arrogant jerks, and this will in turn give them negative associations to math.
But I guess arrogant jerks don't care about that, as long as they can act superior;
they are basically bullies, as far as I am concerned.
Most of the people here are dumb af it's question worth a 6 year old time anybody above 10 should be able to solve it within secs provided he's got the minimum basic education
0 likes@Jacob nothing wrong with being a bit dull sometimes. Definitely something wrong with trying to make peeps feel bad over youtube comments. Grow up :D
0 likes@Tobi I take advices from intellects, so I'm gonna have to slide over this one ...get smarter everyone, it's not okay to be dumb, being dumb is just a function of how lazy y'all are
0 likes@Jacob lmfao aig kid you do you, stay mad haha
0 likes@Jacob it's "advise" and also that's not how you use the word function. Not even close lmfao
0 likes@Tobi now I'm highly convinced ur of extremely low intellect from the fact you dont understand what function stands for in that sentence, I do charity work so I will explain a function is not just a mathematical term or a biological action a function is used to relate between two thinks this can be via proportionality so the more the lazy you are the lesser you work and hence the lower amount of knowledge you have ...thank me later :) also quit embarrassing urself
0 likes@Tobi also I'm not mad talking with a non intellect is too funny tbh and also yk just a bit confusing
0 likes@tie agreeeeeeeeed
0 likes@tie You are so arrogant, calm down a little bit. sheesh
0 likes@Tobi also your high use of words like lmao and 7th grade roasts such as stay mad and grow up just shows your
0 likesLimited amount of knowledge and how u cope up by adding In 7th grade filling words like lmao...... grow up::)
@Jacob whatever bud you can't spell pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, which I learned in 2nd grade like a legend. Get on my level :D
0 likes@Tobi wowww you know how to spell a word such a legend..👏🙌 after all I'm the one who took a PhD on it how life takes its turns so ripee
0 likes@Tobi also coniosis means dust disease just in case you wanted to tell daddy..oh wait I forgot I was here
0 likes@Jacob that's absolutely bullshit. Nice try but you are definitely a child with an overinflated ego lmfao. If you are truly over 20 you need to reconsider the life choices that led to you being so horrible to people
0 likesEdit: or your just angry all the time because you get no pussy :/ I wish you luck in life, your going to need it. Adios hermano
@Tobi yk I have got one u see as I mentioned earlier I'm ur daddy so technically that implies
0 likes@tie 🤡
0 likes@tie Okay, relax bro. I'm smarter than you and even I don't go around bullying people. Must be a reflection of bad parenting from your life.
0 likes@Jaysuh i am smarter
0 likes@Alhimikyup
0 likes@s_ so you call everyone who has basic reading comprehension skills a nerd? Anyways the question is simple. Which of those numbers is a sum(that means what you get when you add quantities) of two other numbers that are both perfect squares (squaring something means multiplying a value by it self, so perfect squares are values that when square rooted, you get a whole number). Good to see that most of this world doesn’t have basic reading skills! I showed that to my 12 year old cousin and she got it. Wait to be ignorant!
0 likesI'm not even an english native speaker and I understood it perfectly
0 likes@Tarnished One you ain't know me fool why be mean :( not cool man
0 likesTrue
0 likes@Tarnished One all I do is eat pussy and scroll youtube and grind the fuck outta hogwarts legacy, im livin luxury fool
0 likes@Kd Fr1lol thank you
0 likes@tie damn so you couldn’t explain it??
0 likesit's childs play if u study math ^_^
0 likes@John Smith real smart person right here is you 💪
0 likes@Tobi true sorry, but move on man…
0 likesThe mood is so intense even for a question like this. 😩😂
7 likesAs a former math major, I have 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 memorized, but if I didn't, I think I would have a lot of difficulty trying all the different combinations of squares to figure it out, while under the pressure of the game show.
635 likesReplies (46)
@Ekrem Papazoğlu A lot of high school math problems that were difficult for me tend to be because I had to throw the Pythagorean theory at it to solve it in some shape or form. So I’d say it’s a good idea to learn Pythagorean triplets to save time on calculations!
22 likes@Soroush Torkian Oh that makes sense thanks
4 likesas a former 5th grader, I have memorised it too.
34 likes@Ekrem Papazoğlu I wasn't ever told "memorize 3^2+4^2=5^2". But those are the smallest integers that fit in the Pythagorean theorem, so they came up a lot.
15 likes@Ekrem Papazoğlu Those are called (primitive) Pythagorean triplets. (3,4,5) is one, another is (5,12,13). There's infinitely many of them and there are closed forms and algorithms for generating all possible such triplets.
8 likesNot really memorized as such when in school, but you keep seeing it a lot when doing geometry that you remember it. When learning about right triangles, the very first and simplest example is a 3-4-5 right triangle (hypotenuse of length 5, base and perpendicular of lengths 3 and 4)
I really don't think it takes too much time to brute force as well: highest option is 49=7^2. If you just try going for eliminating the wrong choices: 16-9=7, 16-4=12, 16-1=15, none of which are squares, so A is incorrect. But then when you start checking the second option, 25-16=9 is a square. Takes only 4 subtractions in total to find the answer.
25 likesYou don't need to be a math major to have that memorized lol it's basic 8th grade math. Also, the angles of a 345 triangle are notably 37 and 53 deg. So that's that.
15 likesDude I don't have that memorized and still got that in 10 seconds, like they first need to learn english then math.
8 likes@Ekrem Papazoğlu they're not really memorised specifically ,but they're like the smallest triplet to fit in the Pythagorean theorem , so people generally remember it I assume.
1 like@The Code Geek 6th grade*
2 likes🤦🤦
5 likesAnd you say you're a math major
All the options here are correct. As they have not mentioned about integer numbers.
1 likeI would had started multiplying and summarizing the numbers in my head. I had plenty of time as they always mention.
1 likeI nice thing to notice is that when you take the difference between two adjacent squares, for example, you’ll get a specific odd number equal to those two roots added to each other: 4^2 - 3^2 = 4 + 3
0 likes5^2 - 4^2 = 5+4
You can use this to your advantage to find triplets with two adjacent integers (and can vary on it with other combinations for non adjacent ones)
For example 3^2 being equal to 9 (an odd number), you can cut it into two, nearly equal halves to get the two other squares, which are 5 and 4
Another example, 7^2 is equal to 49, so 7 is included in the triplet 7^2 + 24^2 = 25^2
@Niels Bohr meanwhile you, not a math major, a nobody.
3 likesYou don't need to be math major to solve this childish question
5 likesi mean if you solved quite a bit of pythagorean stuff then this one should basically be branded into your head
1 likeSince they didn't specify that the number had to be nonzero, one could have easily just taken the square root of any of the numbers, squared it, then added 0^2 to it and you would have gotten a square of 2 lower numbers.
1 likeSo for 49, the highest numbers you can have 6^2+6^2, lowest numbers 4^2, 4^2 (since root of 49/2 more than 4).
0 likesSo you have 6 combinations, 4^2+4^2=32, 4^2+5^2=41, 4^2+6^2=52, (you could stop there since numbers will only increase) 5^2+6^2,=61 6^2+6^2=72. None of these numbers are 49 so it's not 49.
For 36: 4^2+4^2 = 32, 4^2+5^2=41 so not 36.
for 25: 3^2+3^2=18, 3^2+4^2=25 it's 25.
@Ankit Singh bro its whole squares, they didnt mention integers because it aint apart of the question
2 likesWell not really. Firstly there's no pressure he has all the time in the world to figure it out. It's not like a quiz where you get timed out and have to think fast. There's only 4 answers it has to be one of them so there are hardly any combinations to test. These are the squares of 4,5,6, and 7. So it's immediately obvious that 1^2 can't be one of the 2 because adding or subtracting one from the answers shown won't give you a square. In 6 cases this is obvious (the lower or higher square is right there in front of you and you can see it's more than 1 away) for the other 2 it should be trivial to see that neither 15 nor 50 are squares.
0 likesSimilar logic for 2^2. 16-4 = 12 isn't a square (the next lower square is 9) and all the other answers are more than 4 apart from each other. That strongly suggests one of the squares is going to be 3^2 (if we get any higher than 3, then it would need to be 2 of the answers shown but we can see adding any 2 of these, say 16+25 is 41, 16+36 is 52 - so one number isn't a square and the other additions are getting too high - the answer must be less than 49. That means 3^2 must be one of them, that's a difference of 9 and 2 of the answers shown have a difference of 9. So we can see B (25) is (A) 16 + 9, which is 3^2.
Then, my sir, you aren't a match major.
0 likesYou need to be a math major to get a question that simple right? I didnt know about 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, i just thought of the first perfect squares, 4, 9 & 16, and realized 9 + 16 = 25
1 like@Xenomnipotent haha,i did not had to be a maths major to write that. Though i am not a maths major but an engineering undergrad in India's best college and world's 250th best uni
1 like@Monwhea Jeng I don't remember seeing those 3 numbers that much but that may just be me.
0 likesI started with 2, 3, 4 and 5 until I got the right pair 😂
there arent even that many combinations (that you cannot rule out immediately), but i think the pressure would have made this 10 times harder for me as well.
1 likeBruh. I have this memorized since 5th grade xD
0 likesIf I hadn't, it'd take me like 30 more seconds to test my options until I find the answer. The question is elementary!
@Eugenics are good me or him?
0 likesBut 16 is the sum of two smaller square numbers : (4^2) + (0^2) = 16
0 likes@Rabbit hole 0×0 = not defined
0 likesMr. Former Math major cant u also say that all the answers are correct??
0 likesBecause √26²+√23²=49 so logically all answers are correct right?
@Rabbit hole 16 is not smaller than 16.
0 likes@Oricisjan in math, we say a number is a “perfect square” only if it an integer that is the square of another integer.
1 like@Ethan Greenberg No, because a number is not smaller than itself.
0 likesSeriously? It shouldn't take more than 2 minutes or so, really. You need to test 4 or 5 numbers, each of them taking a few seconds.
0 likes16. 1^2 = 1. You're left with 15, which isn't a square. Try 2^2 = 4. You're left with 12, which doesn't work. Try 3^2 = 9. Left with 7, which doesn't work, move to the next.
By the time you test 3^2 on 25, and you're left with 16, which is 4^2, the answer should be obvious. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes at most. I found the video kinda baffling, like the guy didn't even understand what the question meant.
What pressure is there to get 9+16? Stop finding excuses for dumb ppl ffs
0 likesAs a former 3rd grader I can also multiply my 3’s and 4’s and then add them together
2 likesI have a degree in mathematics too, and I struggled. I did get the right answer in plenty of time, but I also wonder how I would have fared under pressure. I am not very good at all with mental arithmetic, especially when under pressure. I know (3, 4, 5), but (9, 16, 25) is less recognizable.
0 likesSince the highest number is 49, you only need to go through the combinations of 1-6 so you should be able to handle it
0 likesSo that's what the question was referring to! Another commenter mentioned the question would've been more intuitive if the they used "squared" for the 2nd square.
0 likesMaybe if you try the minimum strategy, you just keep analysing every number and the smallest parts you can divide it that also are square numbers, therefore you come to the conclusion that the only option is 25
0 likesTook me like 10 seconds to figure it out without having a single math degree. That was an insanely easy question. 70% of that audience are morons.
1 likeFollow on question, which of these square numbers also satisfy the condition: a) 289 b) 225 c) 100 d) 169
0 likesTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
0 likesa^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
@Niels Bohr I need you to understand that neither math majors nor mathematicians spend their time doing arithmetic in their heads and most probably aren’t that good at it.
0 likes@Drought Bee not sure about your country but is this even called mental maths? Here in India, 6 graders can do that easily within seconds.
0 likesRyan is now a math scientist
2 likesThe audience applauded as someone had lost 15,000$ .
8 likesAudience: If we don't get it, shouldn't someone else get it? 😂
I love how the audience clapped after failing to math xD
2 likesThe audience gives him a wrong answer then they start clapping.
18319 likesReplies (72)
Lol
216 likesThey all were like: let’s clap so he thinks that we are the ones who voted B.
1264 likes"DW Bryan. It's okay to be stupid. YAY!"
164 likesThat's what I was thinking 😂😂
56 likesWhy ur likes are 911 ?
12 likesIts all set up😂😂the audience gets paid for sitting and clapping.... Lol...
105 likesDumb audience
56 likesPathetic
12 likesThey all hated Ryan
53 likesEND GAME IS NEAR
11 likesLmao
4 likesworld is full of evil
21 likesSarcastically clapping their own lack of clarity it seems.
28 likes😂😂😂😂
6 likesI just added 16+9 mentally and got 25. I been knew that. (cue tpir losing horn)
8 likesCharlie Williams Clapping 👏 because of other questions and answers so at the end so?
0 likesThey trolled him and were applauding their success. 😂
16 likesdamn, that's rude
2 likesI think the audience were right...why can't it be (4^2 )+0^2= 16
13 likesDumb audience
1 like@Vikram Tete *harvard wants to know your location
20 likes@Ghost true
0 likesSwarnava Banerjee true
0 likes@Dniam hmm
1 like@GuyInSpideySuit yeah...it should be 25...But 16 was almost close to correct answer. By the way...I'm already in Harvard.
1 likeSavage
1 likeIt's customary to clap when a contestant finishes their run, no matter how.
1 like@S' • Shibam The audience were not that dumb since the question was very easy, but a bit tricky at the same time. Just we need to have a great presence of mind, and be careful with each line of any question.
0 likesAlso the audience polls have revealed a fact about us humans, that is in nature 45% of humans are careless and egoistic, 22% are meticulous, and rest 23% or 10% are dumb.
2 likes@Vikram Tete yes brother
1 like😂
1 like@Vikram Tete 16 isn't smaller than 16, it's equal to it. Read the question carefully.
7 likesactually both 16 and 25 are correct
0 likes16=4^2+0^2
25=16+9=4^2+3^2
but I guess 4^2 is equal no less than 16 thgat's what skewed the answer
@xeralt its hilarious
0 likes@Vikram Tete then all the answers should be correct, 36= 6^2 + 0^2 and so on for the others too
8 likes😂😂😂😂
1 likeYeah, why they were clapping? 😂😂😂😂
0 likes@محمد 😂😂😂😂
1 likeYa cause fuck em
0 likesWhy did the audience go for an answer of which they are not sure. It is really frustrating if audience causes one to lose in such games.
0 likes@Vikram Tete 0 is not a number. If 0 were a number then 0/0 would have been 1. Ramanujan had asked the same question, whether 0 can be considered as a number or not. He also concluded that 0/0 can be written as 1,0 and infinity. But if zero were a number then there would be no possibility for 0/0 to be undefined
0 likesI do not know ,why are audience claping
0 likesEvery indian can give this ans
2 likesAnd then everyone clapped
2 likesThose audience mostly are retarded lol
1 likeAmerica
0 likes@Unknown even the ones fresh out of the womb.
0 likesLOL FUNNIEST QUESTION EVER
0 likesLol
0 likesDon't trust people 😂😂
0 likesMost Savage audience
1 likethis was their scheme fro the start!
0 likesbest thing of all time
0 likesTheyll be licking the windows of the bus on the way home too.
0 likesAHAHAHHAHAAHA
0 likesJebaited.
0 likesThey used to be the audience for Saved by the Bell.
0 likesThere's an even more cringe-worthy example on the British version of WWTBAM where the audience cost some poor fellow considerably more money because 87% of them could not identify the opening paragraph of the novel Dracula--and the contestant went along with the overwhelming majority. They applauded themselves too.
0 likesThey're giving themselves a round of applause for successfully tricking this fool.
0 likesSo toxic
0 likesthe audacity lol
0 likes@محمد They are the voters who tell any winner that we voted for u😆😆😆
0 likes🤣😂🤣😂🤣
0 likesNo shame…lol
0 likesAudience did the math right .. they wanted him to go home with 1000 dollars.. 😉😆
0 likesملوطه منهم
0 likesThey are clapping because, Audience will be rewarded at the end with free lunch or dinner for saving 15000 dollars of production team.. 😆
0 likesDunning Kruger syndrome on full display.
0 likes@mathematician 0 definitely is a number. 0/0 is undeterminable, not undefined. A number is just the useful abstraction of groups having a certain size. When you see 5+5, you don't think about 5 apples being added to another group of 5 apples, you abstract away from the physical and just do 5+5. It's the same for 0. It is just the abstraction away from reality into the theoretical of a group with size nothing
0 likeslol🤣🤣🤣🤣 even a sixth standard would answer this ,and even if a student's gets wrong he probably wouldn't clap for that😂😂
0 likes@محمد lmfao
0 likes😂😂
0 likesThis would be the only reason I'll ever need to know math.
2 likesIt was so super easy, that if he might have even tried to understand the question, he might have won the round
4 likesI guess when you're under a lot of pressure, knowledge can sometimes fall back in mind. It's very stressful. Not everyone can do this on the back of their mind.
25 likesPlus they had to say the answer without having notes so it wasn't overly clear.
Replies (5)
WHAT????
0 likes@Howard McKeown not everyone likes math lol
0 likesStop this smug "we Asians know everything about math, and we are above you" attitude, ffs - it is extremely irritating.
0 likesYOU have several people who find math very difficult AS WELL, just like literally all other countries.
And contrary to what people with your attitude seem to believe, math doesn't make you some kind of superior specimen who has permission to mock and ridicule people who find math difficult.
Get off your high horses.
😂😂😂okay
0 likes@Jirachi- Wish Maker it's ok
0 likesa lot of people don't like math. Not everyone knows how to square numbers (or even know what squaring is).
I think the reason why most people got it wrong was because they misunderstood what “sum” meant and initially went 4*4 to get 16 which is why everyone put optionA
1 likeA lot of people, including myself, chose A because they didn't put much attention to what the question asked. They thought "a number which is a product of two square numbers".
1 likeReplies (1)
Yeah, the words SUM and PRODUCT sound and look so much alike, it would be easy to get them mixed up.
0 likesThe way they wrote the question was a little bit confusing, but after all my math classes theres no way I forget about the 3-4-5 side triangle
8563 likesReplies (111)
its literally describes Pythagorean theorem, took me a while to realize too. I'm ashamed 🤣
474 likesI taught my son this, this week. We use it on the job site to see if we got the wall square. Idk how it works 😂
72 likesI didnt quite understand the question either so I picked A. But when she told them 9 and and 16 that's where the question made sense to me
221 likesThis triangle's angles are 37°, 53°, 90°
44 likesYeah. They want to fit under 2 lines.
7 likesI thought the question was very clear personally. Very easy in my opinion. I would lose on the sport questions haha.
155 likes@ARSACE JEE ???lol
3 likesPythagoras theorem 😂 The 3-4-5 side triangle is permanently fixed in my mind just like my name😂
24 likesI don't know man, if you can get 16 by adding two square numbers you deserve a nobel prize.
38 likes@ARSACE Not exactly ; 37° and 53° are approximate values of sin-¹(3/5) and sin-¹(4/5)
11 likesWasn't confusing at all
18 likes@Humza not all are native English speakers here
18 likes@HyperS everybody can with the conditions described so poorly. 16 is 9 + 8 which is 3^2 + (2*sqrt(2))^2. Never said the numbers must be natural
28 likesAh so this is the correct way to solve it. I did it by gradually checking each square combination, so 4+9, 4+16, 9+16. It worked out because the numbers are small.
21 likesNon-native speaker here and understood it immediately. It's just that when you teach math daily, you automatically learn how to comprehend questions like these.
@Mister Incognito do you know what’s a square number? Ure
8 likes@Mister Incognito You got the definitions mixed up. 8 can of course be the square of a decimal number but it's not a square number which is defined as the product of an integer with itself (at least according to wikipedia)
30 likesBut I think it was pretty clear the guy didn't get the question wrong because he was confused about the definition of square number (or else he could have just asked for clarification). He was just too nervous or bad at math.
@Mister Incognito They said that the numbers must be natural because the questions asks about square numbers and not squares of any number. Also 9 + 8 is 17. Well done.
49 likes@Genesis yeah my bad about 9+8 lol, I was on something. I guess there is a term for square of a natural in English, huh. Not a native speaker, sorry
6 likes@HyperS he and the audience did provide proof that western societies have math problems.
3 likes@War Tome old school bricklayers.....
0 likessane, i thought that it had to be the same number not two separate squares
9 likes@danny supersell Same.
0 likesYeah 3-4-5 and 6-8-10
0 likes@@trunestor I'm not a native speaker, it's completely unambiguously, there is no other way to understand it; What makes this question kinda tricky is that you think you have it wrong, because it was way to easy
10 likes@ARSACE shlnt it be approx 36 and 54 and 90?
0 likesIt is not a bit confusing...
4 likes@War Tome There are a ton of sick proofs of Pythagoras (like, a ton. IIRC president Garfield came up with one.). My favorite is this:
1 likeTake a right triangle with legs of lengths `a` and `b`, and a hypotenuse of length `c`. Duplicate it, and place the two together with a common hypotenuse, such that they form an `a × b` rectangle. Now duplicate this rectangle, and put the second perpendicular to the first, and position them so that they share only a common vertex. Now around this figure, circumscribe a square by continuing the outside edges of our figure. You'll find that the sidelength of this new square is `a + b`, and we have two new squares formed by "negative space", one of sidelength `a`, and another of sidelength `b`. Now keeping our large square intact, we reposition our 4 right triangles (remember them?) such that their right angles are in common with those of the large square, and they do not overlap. Now, their hypotenuses should together form another square, this time with sidelength `c` (the length of the hypotenuse).
Now, we note that in the first position, the areas of the four triangles, plus the areas of the two squares (`a²` and `b²`) must add up to the area of the large square, while in the second position, the areas of the four triangles, plus the area of the new, single square (`c²`) must add up to the area of the same large square. Canceling out what is common between these, we see that `a² + b² = c²`.
This, of course, is not a proof, it's more of a loose guide on how to construct the proof yourself. It's much more satisfying to see the actual figures than to just hear them described.
Very easy had I understood the question in the first place.
3 likesIt’s not confusing in the slightest
9 likeswait what, they were speaking about squares not triangles
0 likes@emerald Well, yes, however quite famously you can form a right triangle with legs of length 3 and 4, and hypotenuse of length 5, meaning that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, which is exactly what the question is asking for.
2 likesIt's the opposite for me. I instantly catch it's about Pythagorean theorem, but need a good minute or two to remember the number that's always get used for the basic example
1 likeExactly what I thought. The classic example of Pythagoras theorem which they start teaching before high school.
2 likes@Biscuit Pedantic.
1 likeThe question is pretty clear but the stupid audience just jumped over the word sum( sum only means thru addition)
4 likesThe question is very clear.
3 likes@Mister Incognito A "square number" must be an integer. That's part of the meaning of the term. The term would otherwise be meaningless, as all numbers have square roots.
3 likesIt really isn't people just aren't that familiar with math terminology.
5 likesThe question is plainly wrong, should say WHOLE numbers otherwise all of them have sum of squares that yield them
4 likes@Javier Vera the phrase "SQUARE numbers" entails whole numbers.
7 likesThere is nothing confusing in the question, it is perfectly well formulated. For 16 grand you can take your freakin time and compute this. And the stupid audience should not give a freakin answer if they’re not sure about it. That’s such a tragedy.
6 likes@Mister Incognito come on, given the context it’s obvious we’re talking about perfect squares here. Otherwise every answer would be correct.
3 likesIt’s completely unconfusing.
4 likes@Javier Vera not really, because when not specified, what we call a square number (at least in English) is the square of an integer.
2 likes@Care Bear thats true, my bad
2 likesIt's not confusing if you think logically. Just a rearrangement of the Pythagoras theorem.
0 likesThe question was very clear and straight forward. If you don’t understand it then you just don’t have a good understanding of math.
2 likesYeah I was confused with it at first
1 likeThought it was asking:
2x^2 = y^2
The question might require a bit of thought, but it's not because of the wording. People love to blame the wording. If the wording is the issue, then what would be a less "confusing" wording?
1 likeFor some reason I initially thought that only one was NOT the sum of the squares. I figured it out in time, but there's a lot of pressure on the person sitting there.
2 likesPythagoras triplet
1 like@ARSACE dude knows trigonometry lol
0 likes@War Tome Mate its simple
0 likesIt is applicable for triangles with one angle measuring 90 degrees
It says that the side opposite to the right angle(called hypotenuse) bears the following relation with the other two sides (called perpendicular and base)
(Hypotenuse)² = Perpendicular² + Base²
I currently study in 10th grade(In India) so I know the theorem
Here,we are even asked to prove the theorem which is pretty simple.
@Snappy421 24 7 and 25
0 likes24 7 and 26
These numbers are called pythagorean triplets
Another could be
9,12,15
The question is very clear, purist could argue it should specify non zero integer numbers but if you can think of that then the question is obvious enough for you that you can still answer correctly. The most shocking is that he never tries to figure out which numbers it could be before answering.
0 likes@HyperS you can, they are just not integers or one of them is zero but anyone able to figure that out will answer 25.
0 likesWhen you understand the meaning of the term square number and you see the keyword "SUM" there, it shouldn't be a problem. The problem is, just like me at first people thought it was 16-->4=2x2
0 likesThe Pythagorean triplet.
1 like@Mister Incognito a square number in mathematics is literally always a whole number. That's the terminology we use.
0 likes@PA DABOUM no need to mention non zero because if you take zero as one of the squares then the other square will be 16 which is not less than 16. The question clearly says the sum of two smaller squares
2 likesNot at all.. This question is so simple that I can't believe it's worth 16.000$
0 likesCarpenters use that all the time.
0 likesMade perfect sense to me
0 likesThen what would be a simpler way to ask the same question?
1 like@Gabriel *square of an integer
0 likes@Gabriel if you are stating the definition of a term then it needs to be accurate. You need to include integers in your definition
0 likes@Mister Incognito 3^2 isen't a Square number my guy
0 likesthe what
0 likesI take a class where It’s easier
0 likesYou're right my man
0 likes@danny supersell OH MY--
0 likesI literally just realized after reading your comment
Wasn't confusing at all imo
0 likes@Ricardo Blikman is it a problem not knowing this though? For the average person they'll never need to do anything like this.
0 likesCrazy all this talk of 345 triangles, obviously was never taught in Australia. We only learned a^2+b^2=c^2
0 likesI understood the question rightaway but Im a math student
0 likesI misunderstood the question. I never considered the sum of 2 DIFFERENT square numbers lol. I was trying to make the two smaller squares be the same number. Ima baaaad math student.
3 likes@Asdfssdfghgdfy yes because it cost you a lot of money, not only in this example game but also getting ripped off by banks and stuff because +-X/ are really too simple for most stuff that involves a lot of money. If you dont have a lot of money you could state it is kinda pointless to know and understand but if you do you wont be in the situation where you end up with no money.
0 likesIts not about all the math stuff and stories in the books it is the way of thinking about solving problems what it gives you when you study it, when you have a basic deeper understanding of how stuff around you work and why you can use that understanding to acquire large amounts of money which removes the stress of not having enough money every month and more free time in your life to perse happiness
I don't think I've heard about that triangle.
0 likes@@trunestor yes absolutely, "square number" is not a common expression in my language, I wonder if they mean numbers with an integer square root.
0 likes@MCLooyverse that is very interesting, I don't think I ever heard about that 3-4-5 triangle thing.
0 likesJust list the squares and figure it out:
0 likes1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
Then start top:
Is 49 sum of two squares: No
Is 36 sum of two squares: No
Is 25 sum of two squares: Yes
No it wasn't.
0 likes@LavishPatchKid Should have paid more attention in school
0 likes3. 4. 5. I still remember.
0 likesNice and there’s the 6-8-10 side triangle as well (which is just double each side obviously). Pythagoras theorem. He should have known the answer.
0 likes@Happyhedgehog64 yeah exactly, he did well to get there but this was a simple GCSE maths question to lose out on.
0 likesLiterally this is pythageron triples too easy....
0 likesi just picked D because 2 and 3 becomes 4 and 9, then i just added them like two strings in a programing language resulting in 49 xD i might be coding too much
0 likesthis is why i hate highschool maths, their wording is horrible
0 likes@danny supersell same here
0 likesExactly my man
0 likes@Paige Herrin There is no such numbers because 2 is not a square number. If there existed such a number A² = B²+B² | A, B ∈ ℤ. Then A² = 2B² which means A = √(2)᛫B, if B is an integer then A can't be integer since it's the product of an integer and irrational number.
1 likeHow should they have asked the question for it to be less confusing? "Which of these whole numbers is the following whole number to the number 24?"
0 likesThat's what I was thinking about
0 likesThe question was very clear.
0 likesIdk what you're saying
It was sort of a poorly written question. I've never in my life heard the term "square number" but I've heard "perfect square number" or "perfect square" thousands of times .
0 likesPerhaps its where you grow up, idk.
I completely misunderstood the question and thought 16 was correct I thought it was 2^2*2^2=4*4=16, like it was the number squared, then squared again. (I'm terrible at explaining.)
0 likesExactly. If the question had asked which of the square numbers also happens to be the sum of two "different" smaller square numbers he and the audience probably would have nailed it.
0 likes@Mister Incognito You don´t need to be a native speaker. A square number is a math term universally used.
0 likes@zsorens Square number - seriously. It´s 3rd grade math. If you don´t know that, you should not even reproduce.
0 likes@Javier Vera You know the definition of a square number?
0 likes@Dustin G And you should not even apply for the show.
0 likes@bowlchamps37 you know math can be studied in different languages and terms might sound differently?
0 likes@Gabriel It´s very relevant to say integers and not whole numbers. Because a square number can be made out of two negatvies numbers as well. It´s the definition of it.
0 likes@Mister Incognito Yes, but you learn the same definition.
0 likes@HyperS square root of 8 squared and square root of 8 squared
0 likes@Trent Square root of 8 squared isn't a square number.
0 likesHow could you not forget it. They said it like once in class for me
0 likes@@trunestor it's basic english, even someone that only got to b1 should be able to understand it, you just lack reading comprehension (im not native)
0 likes@Mister Incognito 9+8 is 17 and by definition an square number is an integer
0 likesHow is this question confusing? Like, how else would you word it to make it less confusing?
0 likesAs soon as I read the question I immediately thought "Ah yes, pythagoras theorum on how to calculate the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle." when I read the answers I knew it had to be 25 because it's the easiest sum that I learned in grade 2 (3²+4²=5²). Why didn't the audience memorise that one specific equasion? It's clearly the easiest way of remembering how to add square numbers, I litterally learned what a square number was when I was 4 how could 70% of the audience not get this right?
5 likesReplies (2)
Ah yes! 😂
0 likesGrade 2 ?? 😭
1 likeI think he knows math but he got stumped under the pressure and stress of the whole situation. I could figure out it was B, but I had enough time to pause the video and try to think on my own in the peace and silence of this living room, and I also got stumped at first. It made me even more frustrated because I felt dumb by being stumped at an apparently simple problem. I hope the participant recovered from that unfortunate day, learned whatever lesson he had to learn and makes enough money to live a happy lifestyle.
1 likeReplies (1)
I think the audience know math but got under stress and pressure
0 likesThis question (in my opinion) is a bit easier, who have learnt trigonometry or know about Pythagoras theorem. Because there, we're often doing squares of smaller integers, adding them & then taking square roots of the sum.
0 likes((base's length)^2 + (perpendicular's length^2))= (hypotenuse's square)^2
Less to do with understanding math and more to do with reading comprehension lol
1 likeWhat’s really disturbing is that only 30% of the audience got it right. It’s not a difficult question.
6368 likesReplies (497)
American Culture!!!
418 likesi got it wrong too rip
277 likes@egg 😔ive lost faith in humanity, Are you 7yrs old or something?
270 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago relax. You can solve math problems but struggle to solve your problem of how to get a woman to talk to you. L
851 likes@egg what answer did you think it was?
19 likes@Handsome Stranger mate its an easy question, people are just braindead
240 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago you think that big a percentage of the audience is THAT stupid ? The question just wasn’t that clear.
429 likes@Handsome Stranger well they clearly were, probably coz they spend their days watching people on quiz shows rather than going to elementary school
191 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago doubt your anywhere as successful as any of those people in the crowd. So don’t really think it matters
216 likes@Handsome Stranger ok whatever
61 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago exactly
178 likes@egg i didnt even know what a square number was lol. I had to google it to realise its the RESULT of a number times itself.
64 likesFckin buzzwords lol
Tbf the question is intentionally written in a very confusing and misleading way. It’s easy to get a question like this right when you’re at home on your computer.
166 likes@Bengiamino it's not a buzz word. How old are you?
163 likes@Handsome Stranger
7 likesSay this to man in the video.
@Yuvraj Shinde if I knew him I would
10 likes@Handsome Stranger
17 likesTill then just take lesson.
@Yuvraj Shinde nah I’m still gonna do what I want. How about you go touch some grass.
21 likes@Handsome Stranger Imagine L'ing someone that you're talking to. Yikes.
44 likes@Anonymous AJ you get one too virgin. L 😂
15 likes@Handsome Stranger Peak narcissism. Please seek help.
96 likes@Anonymous AJ cry about it
13 likes@Handsome Stranger You wish.
71 likes@Anonymous AJ cry about it
12 likes@Handsome Stranger No
65 likesSorry for starting a war, i would delete the original message but then the rest if this reply section would be useless
31 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago I don’t think anyone cares. Go to bed
11 likes@Handsome Stranger i dont think anyone cares if anyone cares, go to bed. See? I can do the same to you, its not constructive at all. All i said was sorry, no need to be so aggressive
97 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago “constructive” you literally came in here calling people dumb. Hold this L weirdo
20 likes@Handsome Stranger yup
42 likesSome people might not have realized what the word "sum" means, and were thinking that it was 4*4.
21 likes@AltName7 Indeed. Those people are called 'idiots'.
59 likes@AltName7 idk about that one chief
3 likes@AltName7 In other words, they are idiots who can neither read nor do math. Just like the contestant himself. Yes.
31 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago and you think just cause you know answer to that question it makes you SmArT...you sound like straight from basement
16 likes@Kenny Ryan only idiots are those who think not being able to do maths makes anyone 'idiot'
29 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago have sex
3 likesThis reply thread really went out the window :/
57 likes@Wounded Angel If you can’t answer a very basic math question like this one then you are an idiot. This question is so simple it’s like one of the questions from “Are You Smarter Than An Eighth Grader”
48 likesThe question was EXTREMELY unclear
17 likes@Handsome Stranger calling people virgins is the most virgin thing ever
62 likes@Barto I’m sure you’d know 😂
3 likes@Bengiamino With all due respect, and out of respectful curiosity, where/when were you raised?
15 likes@ArkenLegend yeah but they said that it is the sum of 2 smaller square numbers
5 likes@Jazza BigHits I got it wrong too. I was thinking that 2 is a square-able number and 2 +2 is 4 which squared is 16. I personally just dont like the wording of the question.
16 likes@Purplox Fair enough, it is worded poorly
6 likesIt doesn't make sense
0 likes@George It was perfectly clear: “Which of these squares is the sum of two squares?” It’s 25, because it’s 16 + 9. The funniest thing about the video is the contestant had literally no clue what was going on from start to finish. What a dumbass, lol 😂 I guess anyone can get into college nowadays.
42 likesyou know what isnt suprising though? people like you who are predictable
0 likes@Handsome Stranger It really was clear , it meant which of the square numbers is also a number which is a sum of two square numbers, in this case 25 is the answer as 3^2+4^2=9+16=25. It is so easy. And so many people do not know it makes me feel disturbed to see how this generation has gone braindead.
63 likes@Nirmalya Chatterjee didn’t ask don’t care. Cry about it 😂
3 likesThe way it was worded confused me
13 likes@ArkenLegend the two previous square numbers, the square numbers are 0,1,4,9,16,25,36. They have to be consecutive: 0 and 1, 1 and 4, 9 and 16 only 9 and 16 make another square (25)
4 likes@egg me too
0 likesThought it was A or C
@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago dude I’m in high school and we’ve learned square roots and all that but this question made little sense at all it wasn’t clear
13 likes@Ryan k, people's brains work differently, some people will interpret the question differently
30 likes@Handsome Stranger dude talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "Hurr durr this guy called people dumb now let me show him how hurtful names are by berating him constantly." Shut the fuck up. Also he's right: the contestant, nor the audience has any excuse for getting that wrong. That's not to say that it's their fault, but when our culture devalues mathematics to the point where only those in stem fields feel it is important, we get stuff like this happening.
55 likes@Smol Boye let me tell you this: we do not care 😂 go touch some grass
3 likes@Handsome Stranger nice to see that you really thought out your response. proud of you bud, keep it up
46 likes@Smol Boye you take YouTube too serious. The internet is your social life 😂 L
2 likes@Handsome Stranger you got me lol
39 likes@Smol Boye Zeus stick... exactly the kind of kid I assumed you were. Enjoy your Christmas little one 😂
1 like@Handsome Stranger that was left up for posterity. Look at the time stamp of the video; Right now I'm 19, in my second year of honours math at university. I'm not taking that video down exactly because I find it cool and a little funny. Also, for someone who says my social life is on the internet, you're doing well to respond to literally every comment on this thread within minutes with the cringiest of zoomer slang. L + ratio + fuck you
49 likes@Smol Boye got you typing paragraphs defending that corny ass video 😂 you’re still the same person in that vid. A lame. Cry some more virgin
4 likes@Handsome Stranger damn. Gonna go back to getting educated while you make your 22nd (I counted) post on this thread. I write long replies because I don't want to seem like a pestering idiot. Who do we know like that?
44 likes@Smol Boye you’re the type of guy to count comments. Not like you have anything better to do. I left this thread a long time ago. I’m literally in your head. This how I know you literally get no bitches 😂😂
4 likes@Handsome Stranger I hope one day you or someone close to you can see how you sound one the internet. Not sure I could accurately describe what you are if I tried. I hope you're trolling dude, if not then good luck with life I guess.
41 likes@Tom American education system at its finest 🤣
12 likesWhat's really disturbing to me is everyone in the comment section claiming people who can't solve this are idiots. Yet these very same smart people are powerless subordinates working under the very idiots they mock.
12 likes@Viii_Glasseye Wrong. I don’t work for anybody as stupid as this contestant
11 likes@Kenny Ryan You may not. But many others do. That silent partner,executive,shareholder,director,program manager, general/regional/district manager,project lead etc. Even the idiot child who was handed his/her leadership position. At some point in your working life you worked for an idiot.
3 likesLol the amount of pedantry here, the average person has no reason to know this
3 likes@Viii_Glasseye Not any more
0 likesngl I completely forgot what square numbers were, but once I checked the question was of course easy. That's how little I use math in my day to day life
3 likesIt could be difficult, if one is under a lot of pressure.
11 likes@George how exactly????
1 like@Ryan you not understanding it doesn't mean it's unclear
22 likesAlmost all math is difficult for me. I've never been able to understand it even when it was spelled out for me. Now, Humanities on the other hand, is a completely different story.
3 likes@Neven It's extremely clear and lucid, I don't know how your brain works
14 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago I have an A in math in one of the best(and hardest) schools in my country, and i still didn't get it right, sometime u just get confused
2 likesOk the way I understood it is 16 is a square number 4.4
1 likewhich is also can be a square number???
idk I'm neither good at math or English speaker. if anyone has free time to explain i'm here.
exactly lol
0 likes@Wounded Angel its an easy question lol
3 likes@George it wasnt though?
1 like@George especially when I answered it correctly on the first time watching this 8 YEARS AGO
3 likes@Viii_Glasseye you have no idea who or what anybody does for a career rofl.
3 likes@dark parker if its about a topic you dont know then sure. But its not like you cant take your time or anything. Pretty sure if a question like this was asked to me even in this setting I would have gotten it right
1 like@Handsome Stranger hi
1 like@TheGaming100 You are correct in this regard. But there's a reason less intelligent people hire a bunch of PhDs and masters to work for them. What they lack in intelligence they make up for in social ability. Networking is the name of the game when it comes to closing deals, getting funding and getting promotions. Not saying intelligent people have no social skills. But in my personal experiences and observations no matter where I went. There were only a handful of really intelligent individuals running things. Most of the time in my experience the really smart people were the builders and innovators working for their lesser counter parts who cut the checks for them. Thats just the way it went.
3 likesWhy work harder when you have the money to hire someone way smarter than you to create ideas and put money in your pocket.
Handsome Stranger So the problem isn't the maths, it's their basic comprehension of written English?
5 likes@Handsome Stranger bro your name is “handsome stranger” and you have stylized squidward pfp, and you’re telling this dude HE has problems talking to women?
16 likes@lolblitz gaming don’t bother, it’s dying down anyway
3 likes@lolblitz gaming Cry about it 😂 tf
3 likesI immediately assumed that the two smaller square numbers were meant to be the same, so I guess that’s what he thought too
1 likeAlso settle down everyone this video is 14 years old
1 likeIsnt 4 a squared number? Ithought 4*4=16 lol im confused on the question
0 likes@Jmu76featuring The question is asking what the ‘sum’ would be. Sum can be used as a word for addition or an equation in general, which must be where most people got confused. It’s asking what two square numbers can be added together to create one of the numbers listed.
11 likesConfusing question or not, it's a frikken game. With multiple choice answers! I had elemtary school questions harder than this. If someone can't figure out a simple math problem like that, they're limely the sort to blow it all on scratch off tickets. Since, you know, they suck at math. He still won $1000 today. Pretty good for a day's work at the game show.
8 likesAs an American, I would like to say that not all of us are this stupid
9 likessorry but it is for me
0 likesOk, I suck at math. But even I got this question right. There’s nothing vague or unclear about the way the question is posed. It asks for a “square” number (something that is something else “times” something else) that also is the “sum” of two other smaller square numbers (the sum being something “plus” something). It really isn’t difficult by any stretch of the imagination and the fact that so many in the audience did get it wrong is worrying.
25 likesoh shut up, no one is impressed. all it takes is forgetting what a square number is. and im sure plenty of them do since they aren't really used in a grown-up's everyday life
2 likes@Mark Exactly. Very well put
6 likes@Michele Rich How can any competent person just ‘forget’ what a square number is? 😂 The guy’s a moron. Even eighth graders know that
10 likes@Kenny Ryan because, like i said, most adults just dont apply square numbers in everyday life. they've grown up since 8th grade.
6 likes@Michele Rich You shouldn’t have to ‘apply’ square numbers to know what a square number is. Most people don’t apply multiplication or division in everyday life, but they should still know that. This guy got into college, and doesn’t know what a square number is 🤦🏻
13 likesits easy after youve thought about isnt it . BUT HE WAS PUT ON THE SPOT!!!
0 likesWell the question is a bit confusing, if you dont read it carefully you can interpret it in different way.
1 like@Kenny Ryan how come you’re so arrogant, calling others stupid and brain dead when the question can be confusing, especially under pressure, people do stupid things.
4 likesSure you’re the smartest person in the world the best actually in maths and everyone that makes a mistake and is slow is stupid and brain dead, everyone who doesn’t know maths up to an arbitrary level are idiots. Despite living life perfectly normal and functioning in society.
Imagine you being a teacher, it would be so great what happens when a student makes a mistake when encountering a new problem.
For me, maths would be concerning when calculating the price of everything I’ll buy in store, or key frames and Bézier curves. Not something about the rate that the universe expands - x .
Not everything in someone’s life is maths unfortunately the time he had to use maths it was a slap to the face and confusing, it takes time to calculate each 4 options and line up the square numbers mentally.
@Kenny Ryan I don’t need to learn how to use a gun because I don’t need to apply it in my life or for example in graphic design.
6 likesI’ll only need to learn a bit if I’m drawing a gun or going out into the woods.
This guy instantly got taken from the city to Siberia.
Acting as if people don’t make mistakes or people don’t forget things, like what humans naturally do to process and make life more efficient.
Really? You find that “disturbing?” Describe a single real world application of that knowledge?
5 likes@Neven I don't see how can this question be framed more clearly
6 likes@Handsome Stranger are you a kid? It's a grade 5 or 6 problem
9 likesSawm tluanga ya people who sit in shows for some dollars probably are very rich.
5 likes@Handsome Stranger you are the most dumbest and most narcissistic I have ever seen. Go watch cn
11 likes@Wounded Angel ya he is smarter than those who cannot answer a fifth grade math problem. Iq is directly related to smartness
5 likes@George no it was not
1 like@Ayush Mishra that’s cool kiddo. You don’t even have a tv in your country to even watch the show. Stop talking to me 😂
1 like@Viii_Glasseye how do you know that these people can't solve this
1 like@namaan123 the average person has no reason to be on hot seat as well.
1 like@Mark exactly
1 like@panda it's not at all surprising if the question is a little confusing (which I think it's not) because it's a game show involving real money. What do you expect 2+2 ?
3 likes@Handsome Stranger go wash your face kid.
10 likes@Ayush Mishra the audience were on the hot seat?
0 likes@namaan123 no but that person was and had no clue. Btw 30 percent is not average at all.
3 likes@Ayush Mishra uh ok 😂 you don’t have water in India
0 likes@Handsome Stranger ya we drink Hg instead of H2O and breath N2. But yeah there's no reason why you shouldn't wash your face properly
17 likes@Ayush Mishra I I did not say that. Anywhere in my statements.
0 likesIt's not math so much as math trivia. It's like asking somebody to name the largest prime number below 100.
0 likes@Ayush Mishra If its not confusing then you probably read it carefully 😉😃. And I didnt say it was surprising.
1 like@Kenny Ryan enough already
0 likesHere is the thing, this.... plays out every day when people get asked for extended warranties, loan interest rates, currency exchange rates, sales tax, income tax, life insurance, penalty fees etc etc.
2 likesEvery day people think it doesn't matter and every day people who are bad at maths get screwed because "they don't like working things out". This question was unforgivably easy and this chap lost a cars worth of money because he didn't pay attention. The audience egged him on driving a cars worth of money off a proverbial cliff. Every day your maths teacher thinks, there goes another fool, who is going to get screwed over for the rest of his life because he refuses to believe he can work out this stuff that I tried to explain today, there are literally no people with an average level of education that couldn't piece this together given this amount of time and motivation but instead every day people borrow to much, sign up for lousy extended warranties or end up with penalty fees because they can't be bothered to try to work out how to do things the cheaper way, all the idiots who can't get this question right just put less effort in, it really isn't hard if you know how to square a number, by multiplying two identical numbers. If you went to school, someone spent a long time trying to tell you this. Everything else is effort. It's not hard it is just laziness and that is why you don't have a few hundred grand house, and why you lose a proverbial cars worth of money most years, it really is that easy. Check the discounts, check the tax, check the interest rates, check how much you are spending on booze or netflix or holiday insurance or car insurance or job promotions or why you do your job for that company, or who cares about how hard you work? If you really think no one cares about how hard you work, then you are lazy and stupid, if you can answer all the questions above, you will do fine my fellow youtuber. You have got what it takes to get a regular decent income and put money down on that great house.
For any one who thinks this doesn't really matter, or who thinks the guy tried his best, or he got some bad luck, or thinks that I am some stuck up twat... Good luck, you will need all the luck you get and hope you win those stupid scratch cards, yeah some one has to win and it might be you, statistically it won't be but hey who knows, it might be you, or it might be the guy who calculated the system for scratch cards who gets to live in your nice house and drive a nice car?
Don't wait for fate to sort your life out, just learn maths, it's either right or wrong.
@bart ender only solution
0 likes@TheGaming100 Maybe, dude, maybe. 👍😁
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Bro, I can hardly write a sentence in english and still get the answer right. If they aren't braindead then the game is rigged.
5 likesWhat a hindsight comment. Get a life.
4 likesIt’s quite hard to remain calm and think properly under stress. Also, the wording of the problem WAS extremely incomplete, ambiguous to the point where it made is challenging to interpret what the question was trying to ask.
With all of this going on, now you have to mentally run through your perfect squares
(1,4,9,16,25,36), keep track of them and find two of them that you can get one of the answers. Extremely difficult for many when under pressure, which I think you’re the one too narcissistic and ignorant to comprehend so as a result, you retort to acting like a condescending keyboard warrior who pretentiously believes they are a genius for arguing with people online.
@Damian Justice No hindsight about it. I saw stupidity as soon as I watched the video and I called it out. Simple Q. Dude should have known the answer. That’s that.
3 likesContinuing your theme: 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, etc. This shit ain’t rocket science 😂 We all did square numbers in Elementary School. And if a kid as dumb as this guy can get into a college without understanding what a square number is, then it’s no wonder the Chinese and Japanese are beating us in global trade and business.
Look at the dudes face at 2:19. He genuinely has no clue what the host is trying to explain to him. Our education system needs improving.
@Kenny Ryan
6 likesIf anything really, stupidity is you ignoring everything that I just explained from a different perspective that the contestant was most likely under just to uphold your own initial bias. Simple as that, hindsight.
@Damian Justice This shit is obvious dude. Square numbers. Know your shit. Being ‘under pressure’ doesn’t excuse stupidity. If he was unable to say that the first three letters of the Roman alphabet are A, B and C would you try to explain that by saying “Ah well he was under pressure”.
4 likesThis stuff is basic common knowledge man. And this dude just didn’t have it 🤷🏻♂️ And that’s what is worrying.
@Kenny Ryan
5 likes”Continuing your theme: 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, etc. This shit ain’t rocket science 😂 We all did square numbers in Elementary school.”
> Thanks for proving my point even further that with the multitudinous amount of numbers to LITERALLY keep track in your head under stress and self-evaluation wary and the fact that this guy didn’t have scratch paper to write his potential thoughts down, it’s really not as surprising he got it wrong as you are blowing it out of proportion to be for the sake of exposing your ego. Your “grade school” rhetoric really doesn’t apply since these are problems that yes, we can easily solve through paper, with an instructor showing us step by step, and so forth and more easily accessible materials that assist us. The contestant had NONE of that whatsoever, so this comparison does not uphold your argument.
*”And if a kid as dumb as this guy can get into college without understanding what a square number is, then it’s no wonder why the Japanese and Chinese are beating us in global trade.*”
> To be fair, one can theoretically be competent in business and trade without applying squares in real life problems. You don’t really need to specifically understand how squares work to do well in business. So, I’m not sure why this rhetoric was added.
“Look at the dude’s face at 2:19 . He genuinely has no clue what the host is trying to explain to him”
> His reaction doesn’t really make it that obvious as that can also be interpreted as him astonished at the thoughts of losing a large sum of money for getting the question wrong.
”Our education system needs improving”
> Finally a sentiment that I VASTLY agree with. Yes, our education system is flawed on so many levels. Teachers are extremely undervalued in American culture to where society treats it as some kind of back up job as opposed to a valued occupation like an engineer, lawyer, or doctor.
It's not a difficult question but it can take some time to work through. I know what a square number is but didn't know all the square numbers off the top of my head. I had to work through it for a minute or so to get it. Being pressured on the game show certainly wouldn't help, even for an audience member.
0 likes@panda I read it many times and its still not confusing. Sum of squares, where's the confusion?
6 likes@Damian Justice there was no time limit. He could have taken his time to solve it.
9 likes@Ayush Mishra
0 likesI agree that he could had taken his time. He probably would had gotten the question right if he had knew what squares were. It did take me about 2 - 3 minutes to know 25 was most likely the answer.
@Damian Justice ya that's the point. He should have thought for a while. Believe me there is no other statement to put Pythagoras theorem more clearly. It's what it is.
6 likes@Ayush Mishra
1 likeI didn’t use Pythagorean theorem to get the answer. What was your thought process? Just curious.
It's difficult for some people.
0 likes@Damian Justice I didn't use Pythagoras theorem as such. It just popped to my mind the 3 4 5 triplets as there are only two squares which add up to 25 which is the Pythagoras theorem.
6 likesMany people thought, including me at first it was 16-->4=2x2 when it actually means 16(4x4) + 9(3x3)=25
1 likeIt’s funny how some people on here believe that being decent to good at math is the main factor to being intelligent
15 likesI paused the video just before he asked the audience and I probably had it paused for the equivalent duration of the video (3 mins) before I finally got it. Somehow I'm doing final grade advanced maths in high school
1 like@Firenzar Frenzy it happens. I want to know one thing what's like advanced math in high school? Are there multiple levels of maths in high school where you study? Just curious
0 likes@Ayush Mishra Going from highest down
1 likeWe have extension, advanced, standard and one below that I can’t remember
The HSC (in Australia) gives a few questions that are the same across all levels but most are tailored for your course difficulty
We get one exercise every lesson (so 3 a week) but sometimes the repetitive ones we only do half.
Do not pick advanced imho if you cannot do basic calculations (expanding/factorising) mentally at moderate speed or if you don’t learn well under time constraints. (Quite frankly I think I’m gonna crash and burn because I tend to only understand topic better than my classmates when I have time to absorb it all. Hence I’ve been left in the dust recently)
@Firenzar Frenzy is high school a grade 12(final school year) or college in your country?
0 likes@Ayush Mishra grade 12 is final HS year. i'm aussie
0 likes@Firenzar Frenzy ok so it means that you are a grade 12 student.
1 likeI'm a second year college student and I took physics, chemistry and mathematics in my grade 12.
I don't know the level of grade 12 maths in Australia but here in India since we take jee examination for college entrance(engineering) which is quite difficult and contains a huge syllabus so I presume we have a similar syllabus as of yours, but I'm not sure.
@Handsome Stranger It's certain that that big percentage of the crowd is really stupid....99% percent of under 15 kids would answer this correctly in my country and I think in most countries.... English is not even my first language and yet the question was clear af to me so I don't know why are you saying that the question wasn't clear
4 likesSawm tluanga See being successful is great but you should certainly have that bare minimum (because this question only needs bare minimum iq) to slove such an easy question or else I would have a really tough time believing that you cleared school which apparently most of the people in the crowd must have did
0 likes@Honest panda idc about your dirty ass country. I said what I said. Cry about it
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Well it's clear how big of an idiot you are when you called my country dirty ass.... It's also clear who is the idiot here and who's crying
8 likes@Honest panda he probably struggled in maths and is now crying about it. Leave him
4 likes@Ayush Mishra yeah
3 likesYeah and probably half of that we’re guessing
0 likesIt’s easy to misunderstand the question
0 likes@Handsome Stranger if you can’t solve a simple problem like this then whatever you do in life you are DUMB
7 likes@Handsome Stranger Whatever country he’s from, at least he’s not an innumerate imbecile like yourself and this contestant who are unable to do basic elementary school math
6 likes@Inversion yes. And those people are called ‘idiots’
2 likes@Tom ok mr. know-it-all, not a single soul here cares how right you want to be, just to let you know.
0 likesi thought the smaller square numbers had to be the same. i dont know why 🤦♂️
0 likes@Handsome Stranger the easiest question ever bro what are you saying
3 likes@Kenny Ryan you’re literally 37 years old still living at your moms house. I am not worried about you 😂
0 likes@Kirex is that why less than half got it right? Maybe you should be on the show kiddo
0 likes@Honest panda mad that your country doesn’t have clean water 😭 get off YouTube and help the cause
0 likes@Tatakaw I’ll be dumb with my masters. You got your GED framed on your wall huh? 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Nope. 36 and own my own apartment. It’s not hard to do when you can do very basic math
4 likes@Kenny Ryan 36 still living in an apartment? 😂 I’m done arguing with you
0 likes@Handsome Stranger i should yeah im planning on going
1 likeA VERY easy question. How stupid is that audience that watches that show.... sigh.....
3 likes@Handsome Stranger No, the audience IS that stupid (... and AOL also ).
3 likes@Handsome Stranger Apartment in Manhattan worth $700,000 😛 Let me know if you need help understanding that big number. I’ll give you a clue: That’s not a square number 😂
13 likes@Tommy Tillman ikr. It’s absolutely shocking how dumb they were 😧 The question is so basic
5 likes@Handsome Stranger I’m guessing it’s not a Masters in Mathematics 🤣 Probably English Lit or some useless shit like that
3 likes@Handsome Stranger lol just look at the likes for each of your comments. Like every single time you open your mouth less and less people can stand the stench of bullshit. Not to mention anyone who you talk to (read: disparage) gets easily 10x the support. Shut the fuck up. You keep digging yourself a bigger hole because you think prodding others is funny. Here's some news: nobody is mad, just a little annoyed and shocked at how somebody can be so stupid and confident at the same time. If this is how you get your kicks then I feel bad for your eventual (god forbid) significant other.
9 likes@Handsome Stranger don't you want a job? if yes, then don't be dumb with your masters
0 likes@Kenny Ryan
5 likesFor someone smart enough to get to a point where you own a near million dollar house you should be able to identify a troll who’s hungry for attention, which you are providing.
@Handsome Stranger well it was clear tho
0 likes@Smol Boye you’re still going days later? 💀 you count my comments and likes. I live in your head kid
1 like@Tatakaw have a job. Hold this L
0 likes@Handsome Stranger and still tell people that basic maths isn't necessary.
0 likes@Handsome Stranger damn you're stupid... and to rely on just a single kids insult hoping to make others mad is kinda depressing. "TaKe ThE L" how old are you
0 likes@Tatakaw your replies aren’t necessary
0 likes@Koruto old enough to get in your head to make you reply to my comments 😂loser
0 likes@Kenny Ryan it’s a masters in architecture. You’re literally a middle aged man commenting on YouTube. You live alone in a little ass apartment. Dude has no girl at 36 😂 that’s tuff
0 likes@Handsome Stranger no u
3 likes@Tatakaw good one. This is getting too easy 😂
0 likesI know maths but i didn't understand the question clearly
0 likes@Handsome Stranger "easy" unlike maths for you
7 likes@Tatakaw got you mad af. Too easy 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger you can't do 3^2 + 4^2= 5^2, I truely pity you. Anyways, you said you have a job, is your job a youtube commenter?
4 likes@Tatakaw nah my job is making virgins like you mad 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Architecture? Good Lord! And you can’t do basic square numbers? Did you go to the same girls finishing school as this fool contestant? 🤣
4 likesI have a different girl every weekend. That’s what happens when you have money, coz you can do basic math. Not that you’d know 😛
@Kenny Ryan yea I must have huh? I could have went to weinie hut junior university and still wouldn’t be as lonely and pathetic as you. You’re 36! 36! 😂
0 likes@Tyx idc. Goodbye
0 likes@Handsome Stranger I’m popular, successful, handsome and rich 😎 And unlike you, I can do math 😁 It helps, not that you’d know 😛
2 likes@Tyx Fair. Ya most people would get it instantly. It’s a question for school kids. Check out the dude’s expression at 2:20. He has literally no clue what’s going on.
1 like@Kenny Ryan it’s 3am where you are right now. You’re 36 on YouTube at 3am. Anybody who has to say those things about themselves is lying . “Im popular” you lame af 😂 you’re 36 using emojis. With no wife. In an apartment 😂😂 please just stop
0 likes@Handsome Stranger someone whose username on YouTube starts with handsome is telling this? You know actually you have no life and you want to feel intelligent by commenting here. Bad move
4 likes@Ayush Mishra please show me where I tried to flex my intelligence. You’re just mad you’re not allowed in America 😂 you live in a village
0 likes@Handsome Stranger America would be happy to dump someone like you who doesn't know basic maths and is only contributing to make their average iq go down 😂
4 likes@Ayush Mishra that’s cool. How about you use your IQ to leave your village 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger figured
0 likesSitting in my comfy chair, giving my cat scritches, and drinking my hot chocolate, I was able to come up with the answer pretty quickly. Sitting under hot studio lights though with money on the line and without the safety net of being able to leisurely work through the problem, I probably come up the wrong answer as well.
1 like@Handsome Stranger I note that you haven't reworded it here in your comment in a way you consider to be clearer. Remember, this was supposed to be a $16,000 question. I have to know lots more than three squared plus four squared equals five squared to earn $16,000. I'm sure you do too.
2 likes@Mustapha Phische 🤣 So True !
1 likeI can't believe that the audience has no knowledge in maths. Of course we haven't all done maths studies, but it's elementary. It's like I was asking what is Pythagore's theorem. Everyone should have basic knowledge in maths.
2 likesPS : I'm french, I'm still learning english, please don't blame me for my faults.
imo this is really an easy question and English isn't even my first language. But I understand that many people can interpret the question incorrectly, which is a shame
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Even people on here for whom English isn’t their first language are remarking on how easily the question is worded.
4 likesI was up early this morning as I had to catch a train to Brussels for a business meeting. Life is easy and fun when you’re able to do math. No wonder you’re frustrated and angry 😄😋
@Trọng Thiện Nguyễn Thank you. It’s so basic it’s shocking some of the American commenters on here can’t understand it 😮
1 like@Ayush Mishra I was thinking the same thing. He comes across as very angry and frustrated with a load of childish personal insults. Probably very unhappy and embarrassed that he can’t understand basic math questions
3 likes@ch'=sh Exactly. It’s elementary. Your English is fine by the way 👍
1 likeLol it took me 10sec to figure out that was 25.
1 like@Handsome Stranger I haven't seen anyone embarass themselves to your extent in months. And I've read a lot of comment threads. Get well soon.
2 likesLike i am 13 and i can do this maths lol its so easy wth audience
0 likesThats why never trust anyone
You need to re- read the question to understand what it actually means. The question may seem confusing at first.
0 likes@Tyx In the World there are examples of people who never went to elementary school but still were smarter and much more successful than you'd ever be. Imagine being so proud and arrogant just cause you were nerd and knows a answer to a simple math question
0 likes@Handsome Stranger well if the successful people are super stupid, guess I don't want to be successful.
4 likes@Kenny Ryan you are wrong, it means are you smarter than a second grader at most.
0 likes@Izuki Katzuki Algebra? This is fucking Pythagoras, early high school content
3 likesYeah u r right
0 likes@Neven What? Even I understood, as someone whos first language isn‘t english so it can‘t be that hard I guess
2 likesIt should be 16. 8+8. Maths is just stupid
1 like@VG bruh what? 1x1=1 2x2=4 3x3=9…where does the 8 come from?
1 like@SchwuppDieWupp you dont understand sarcasm bruh
1 likeTbh I am a math freak and couldn't even understand the question
0 likesIt’s 9 and 16 but the question is worded terribly
0 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago school is useless. You learn more just by figuring it out on your own
0 likesthats americans for you
1 likeYes.
0 likesI think they understood the question wrong I thought they ment 4×4 is 16 2×2 is 4 something like that idk
0 likes@Smol Boye Aye bro, just leave it, these dumbheads think that mathematics is just a bookish subject and has no value in real life. No use arguing with fools who live in their own fairytale world.
4 likesAre u sure?
0 likes@Sharky Brickfilms not gonna argue with that
0 likes@Izuki Katzuki that wasn't even algebra, tf you at.
0 likes@Wounded Angel well he isn't smart for knowing, even a 3 year old can know that, yea but on the contrary they are super stupid for not to be able to do it. I can easily fool them all in everything, that's how dumb they get.
1 like@Handsome Stranger dude you're fucking toxic
0 likes@Youdononeetokno thank you 😘
0 likes@Kenny Ryan imagine getting harassed for pointing out that not knowing very basic maths (or being able to f-cking read and comprehend a simple and clear question) is a very bad sign of intelligence
1 likethis is what you learn when your 9-10 years old lol
1 like@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago mate go get some girls
0 likes@Handsome Stranger you're the literal defenition of Chad
0 likes@Madison J you’re literally 53 years old. Get a job
1 like@Tom he's older than your mom when she had you
0 likes@Handsome Stranger funny from the guy that comments every week
2 likes@Madison J I could comment every 5 mins and you’d still be 53
0 likes@random person well you won’t be so it all works out
0 likes@Sigurd H.S not embarrassed at all. Crazy you Have that much time on your hands to read over 200 comments. Down bad
0 likes@Kenny Ryan “business meeting” you don’t have a job 😂 you’re 36
0 likes@Tatakaw I live in your head
0 likes@Handsome Stranger liar! you could comment every minute because you don't have a life!
0 likes@Madison J why are you screaming? Relax. Your blood pressure about to go up over a comment 😂 it’s New Year’s Eve. Go do something with your grandkids. I got you mad af
0 likes@Handsome Stranger you mad af to write a paragraph every 2 mins 😂
5 likes@Handsome Stranger well wrong, it depends upon me entirely.
2 likesThe most entertaining thread I’ve read all year by far
4 likesSawm tluanga nah
0 likes@Mr. Stickerton wth it was very clear
0 likes@DiamondsInSight I’m glad you enjoyed 😁 I never could have foreseen this. And we have the contestants innumeracy to thank for it 😃
0 likes@Faisal I don't want to hear it. We've invented a lot of important inventions that make our world what it is today.
0 likes@Madison J is he your husband?😂 why are you defending some random stranger. You must be as dumb as him.
0 likes@Tom I surely am smarter than you tommy! Now go back to sleep before your owner finds out you're using his computer!
1 like@Handsome Stranger "Yeah, I can't do gradeschool math problems but at least I talk to women" -person who has never talked to a woman. L
3 likes@random person no you’re just down bad. Get your money up
0 likes@first name last name you got me man. I got you randoms coming out the woodworks 😂 y’all done formed a super villain team to try to stop me. All y’all holding L’s
2 likes@Handsome Stranger Yup. I’m Head of EMEA Regulatory Policy for a US Bank 😀 You need a head for numbers for this type of work. So this dumb contestant won’t be getting an interview with us any time soon 😂
0 likes@Kenny Ryan dude just looked up a random job name 😂 you’re on this app day and night. You don’t have a job + you’re 36. Just let it go already 💀
1 like@Handsome Stranger imagine making fun of a country because you suck ass at math, pathetic
2 likes@Sivasailam Sankaran go build a mud hut in your waterless village 😂
0 likes@Ryan You just need to know what the term "square number" means and you're golden. This show is about knowing things and this person, nor the audience knew what a square number is.
3 likesThe answer and question itself wasn't difficult. The main purpose of it I firstly didn't understand what do they mean by that. I've spent about few minutes to make an answer
0 likesCongratulations Kenny, now go accomplish something in life since you're such an intellectual titan.
3 likesIt’s really not hard to see how they got it wrong. They probably thought of 4x4
0 likesBut also it’s surprising to see grown adults not know what the word sum means
0 likesI'm not good at math, I'm good at remembering the Pithagorean Triangle
0 likesI just adore how absolutely arbitrary this whole argument came down to being layered within the discussion that whether or not answering a single math questions broadly constitutes your intelligence.
2 likesI tried figuring it out before looking at the answer and I got it right. 25 is 5 squared and 3 squared + 4 squared is 25
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Not day and night. Whenever I pick up my iPad I see a few more notifications of comments on my original post - and I laugh. I do find it funny seeing you try to defend the stupidity of this contestant.
2 likesIf you doubt I’m Head of EMEA Regulatory Policy at one of the US’s biggest banks then ask me a question about what my job entails right here. Go on! I guarantee you I’ll answer it fully. Coz that’s my job. And I promise I’ll go easy on you 😉 I’ll try not to use too many big numbers in my answer 😂
@Kenny Ryan you’re typing paragraphs. Telling me to ask you about your emails. You have too much time on your hands 😂 you’re 36 with no wife living in an apartment. I beat you in life already. About to be 40 and no woman wants you :( I see why you’re so mad
1 like@Handsome Stranger the question is absolutely clear lmao
2 likes@Handsome Stranger my goodness. This generation is so dumb… half the geometry questions in the SAT have the 3-4-5 right triangle. I knew the answer without solving it. And those of you who think you don’t need math in real life, you are up for a big surprise. Everything involves math. Even if you end up being a used car salesman, you need to understand how a down payment and car loan work. And if you ever make some money, you need to figure out your mortgage, your 401k plan, how to invest in stocks, your taxes. All of those require a good understanding of math. That’s why the younger generations will not do as well as their parents. The younger generations make fun of the boomers, but their only hope is their boomer parents to die and leave behind some money. What a sorry way to waste a life. Bunch of losers are all they are.
4 likes@Bob Brown you typed all that for what? Get out your feelings 😂
0 likesI still didn't get it!
0 likes@Handsome Stranger What does the audience have to say for getting that question wrong?
3 likesIt's literally an 8th grade question and yet they couldn't figure it out. Oh you're prolly coping cuz u couldn't answer that either lol. Keep coping, you're doing great at it.
@Handsome Stranger lol kid
2 likes@Michele Rich dude forgetting what square number is? You're clearly dumb if you don't know that.
2 likes@Michele Rich Hey I can bet most of us don't apply what order the alphabets are in now do we? Yet we still remember them.
2 likes@Michael McDonald you don't have to apply it to know about it. It's literally basic common knowledge. If you get that wrong,ofc it's disturbing.
2 likes@Handsome Stranger dude imagine drinking water. You must be pathetic if you do that.
2 likes@Damian Justice exactly what was incomplete?
1 like@Damian Justice what about the audience? Regardless he's on the hotseat and he's a contestant not some kid. It was extremely easy for a $16k question.
1 like@Damian Justice Welp by your logic he can't even speak English cuz he was you know,*under stress*.
1 like@Handsome Stranger dam I didn't know someone who was born in a pool of shit can think something else is shit.
2 likes@Handsome Stranger your life isn't necessary
2 likes@Handsome Stranger dam imagine thinking that dude got mad,wheezzeeee
2 likesThat dude's prolly being like "dam I didn't expect humans to be this dumb"
@Cup_of_H2O i did know it. if you need to stroke your ego that bad by comparing this shit to the alphabet song, have at it.
1 like@Cup_of_H2O they are called letters, dumbass
1 like@Michele Rich alphabet song? What are you talking about? I never stroked my ego nor did I say you didn't know it. Well it's you who said that's since it's not used often it's natural to not remember it,right? So by your logic almost no one should remember the order of alphabets.
1 like@Michele Rich "they are called letters,dumbass"
1 likeWhat the fuck are u talking about here?
@Cup_of_H2O you said the order of the alphabets. it's 'the order of letters in the alphabet', dumb shit.
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O no, idiot. that wouldn't logically follow. that'd be more like saying since we don't count numbers everyday, it'd be like forgetting that 8 comes after 7. just get over it. a square number isn't even in the same fucking ballpark as remembering the alphabet. jesus christ.
0 likesThe really disturbing thing is, that this is a correct representation of our societies intelligence.
4 likes@Michele Rich So you wanted me to write 3 more words for some dumbfuck? Oh please.
1 like@Cup_of_H2O just shut up then
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O you responded to 3 of my comments without me replying. I live rent free in your head kiddo 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger ah you think I care about a kid replying or not? Haha keep crying kid
2 likes@Cup_of_H2O you definitely care which is why you replied to me multiple times. Hold this L 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Maybe if I wait for a few seconds
1 likeA fuck will fall into my hands
And I'll give it to you replying
@Cup_of_H2O that was corny. you’re in bed right now with them sheets that haven’t been washed in 9 days. Go back to bed 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Oh Don't worry it's less corny than your existence. And my beds,hey better than sitting in the streets while being on yt
2 likes@Cup_of_H2O in the streets... smh you’re lame af. All that commenting just to get my attention and you’re wasting your opportunity :( no fun. Another L given to another peasant
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Dam that's the best insult you could come up with? Hahahahaha. Oh and I'm having a world of fun roasting a kid who has a million L's to hand out(which no one gives a fuck about btw).
3 likesThe brain dead math people are salty that they studied something that they will almost never use
1 likeSome of you claim one can forget what a square number is just because they don't use square numbers in their everyday life. However, I'm ready to bet every American knows about Washington's wooden teeth. Do you need to know it in your everyday life? Of course not. Do you remember it anyway? Of course you do. Same thing goes for these basic concepts. What's the difference? Knowing basic math is even more important. Also, the question was crystal clear, nothing ambiguous about it, you just need to pay attention.
4 likes@Cup_of_H2O
0 likesThe question itself was incomplete because it could have easily been interpreted in different ways. That’s why it took me a minute or two to figure out what the question was asking as well as how the multiple choices mathematically coincide as possible answers to the question. In the SAT for example, as flawed and inaccurate the test is, at least their questions are complete and use the right information that won’t often confuse the test taker.
@Cup_of_H2O
0 likesYeah, the audience was pretty shallow to have gotten that wrong. And you’re right that he’s on the hot seat. That’s why I’m defending him.
@Cup_of_H2O
0 likes> ”Well by your logic he can’t speak English because he was under stress”
That literally has zero comparison to the argument I was making. No English Language Arts question was even present in the question. Let alone was the math question itself even coherent with its English. Lmao
So, this comparison sucks.
@Eduard Khil
1 likeI think a better argument to those people is that they simply just see zero value in math because they have no interest in it thus making them not remember basic concepts like square roots, rational numbers. Complex numbers, square numbers and so forth. Personally, I had the same mindset throughout middle school until I realized that the skills required to learn math take logical problem solving skills, which is essential in life. The content itself could arguably not be useful in life, but it’s without a doubt that in some careers, like lawyers for example, strengthening your logical skill set by practicing a few math problems a day won’t hurt at all. Studies have even shown that math majors tend to do as well as the same in performance quality as philosophy and English majors on the LSAT. It’s because math is strongly logical based. So, I would also disagree about the sentiment math being useless.
@Damian Justice That's also a very solid argument. I didn't bring it up because most people will just respond with something like "I don't need to know what 2x+1 means when I ask the butcher for a steak". But you're absolutely right. Even if you don't need it, it's still great practice for building solid logical thinking.
3 likes@Eduard Khil I think this whole “we’re never going to use piecewise functions in the real world so why learn it” mentality is a bad thing since it negatively affects how students perceive math, so they put less effort.
3 likes@Damian Justice Totally agree.
1 like@Handsome Stranger You're a mid twenties incel, we get it.. No need to tell us over and over.
1 like@Sigurd H.S who’s us? Y’all are @ing me cause y’all are mad. I’ve never said my age once. Cry more
0 likes@Deathtrooper204 in real life just about everything that involves making money requires some form of math… ask your elders who are well off..
1 like@Eduard Khil you don’t need math to ask the butcher for a steak but you need math to make money to pay for the steak… to make more money than minimum wage… I assume flipping burgers in McDonald’s doesn’t require much math knowledge.
4 likes@Damian Justice I agree with you. When they are mowing the lawn of someone who works for Google, they will realize how useful math is but it will be too late. They cannot turn the clock back and go back to high school. The problem is the parents of the dumb kids are dumb and uneducated. The kids don’t know how life works; they depend on their parents and other people around them for guidance. Poor kids surrounded by dumb adults turn our dumb and uneducated as a result. Trust me, well educated rich people explain to their kids how life works and insist that their kids take advanced algebra, calculus, honors English, and honors history in high school. Once the children of the dumb uneducated adults fall behind the rich kids in high school, they never catch up with them. The worst misfortune a kid can have is to have dumb and uneducated parents.
2 likes@Damian Justice you said he couldn't answer that cuz he was under pressure,right? Basic math. So he shouldn't even have been able to speak English cuz you know,he was under pressure?
1 like@Damian Justice English language arts wasn't in the question? Then why tf are most people saying the question was confusing? I don't find any confusion nor am I talking about English arts in the question.
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O
0 likes> ” You said he couldn’t answer that cuz he was under pressure, right? Basic math. So he shouldn’t even been able to speak English because you know, he was under pressure.”
What? Just because you are under pressure does not mean that it prevents you from speaking. It essentially prevents you from thinking as logically or as rationally as opposed to if you are not under pressure. Not that you would understand since you’re not the one going through the pressure, meaning your comment is taken for hindsight. This is basic psychology. Lmao
@Cup_of_H2O
0 likes> ”English language arts wasn’t in the question? Then why tf are most people saying the question was confusing.”
> Maybe because it wasn’t an English question, it was a math question hence why English language arts wasn’t in the questions.... maybe? lol also people find the question confusing because the wording of the question made it difficult to grasp what square numbers where they referring since none of the multiple choice answers were square numbers. So, it left the viewer to have to figure out exactly what they meant by square number and which square numbers are equal to the answer 25. Obviously people know how square numbers work, but the it’s without a doubt the question made that objective seem dubious.
@Damian Justice What? Square numbers weren't in the question? How many brain cells doesn one need to figure out those were? It's literally the first pythogorean triple and even if I accept the person in hotseat was under pressure (bullshit) what about 50% of the prople? They were literally sitting there with no pressure,what excuse do they have to give it wrong? Besides if it's not English language arts then why was it confusing? What was dubious in the question?
0 likes@Damian Justice Aww thinking logically? What about English grammar? No that doesn't count right. And the OP was talking about audience. What excuse do they have?
0 likes@Damian Justice it's not a godly tough question that you can give the excuse of thinking logically under pressure. If someone got 1+1wrong it's cuz they were under pressure?
0 likes@Bob Brown True! I guess they're OK with making minimum wage while working their asses off 😅
0 likesAnd even then, logical thinking is still useful in other things apart from work!
@Michele Rich You clearly said adults don't use square nos. irl so they fucking forgot square numbers. So by your logic almost no one should remember the order of letters in the alphabets right? Or heck the order of digits. You can't even provide valid points.
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Hey you don't need to tell your age. Any humans with a functioning mind(,yeah not u) can figure out that you are a mid twenties neet leeching off ur parents.
1 like@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago I didn't read the question right since I didn't realise they wanted the sum. I literatly woke up rn so I was gonna get it wrong
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Legend says you're still laughing to this day. "Cry more and cry about it" is the only word you know. Sad sad 🥲 Crying for you now my guy. I can buy you a dictionary if you want 🤧 But I enjoyed your laugh my guy. Wish I could hear more of your laugh... I'll make your word a quote in memory of you 😭🤧 "Go and cry about it. Cry more 😂" - Handsome Stranger 😭🤧
1 like@Cup_of_H2O that doesn't 'follow my logic'. it's not like everything a person learns as a kid has the same likelihood of being forgotten as an adult, you moron. i never said that. give it up.
0 likes@Michele Rich You literally fucking said they forgot about square numbers cuz it's not used irl often. Stick to your fucking word. It's not super complicated formula that it's natural to not remember. It's goddam square numbers.
1 like@Cup_of_H2O and that doesn't fucking mean that everything a person learns in their life will have the same chance of being forgotten. I AM sticking to my fucking words, you gaslighting fuck
1 like@Kenny Ryan. It looks like the public school system is failing greatly.
1 likeLmaoo you in school rn, when you graduate and don’t use it it fades.
3 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago "braindead" not having knowledge on a specific subject doesn't relate to intelligence at all that's knowledge
2 likes@Will I actually still use it almost 50 years later. I try not to rely much on smart phones etc. too mucht. That way I keep my brain active.
0 likes@Blue Mint that’s a lot of emojis kiddo. & that’s a lot more than a “word”. But you tried it little guy 😂
0 likes@Kalel Castro Do you want to know what's more concerning?
2 likesWhat Oregon did: "Oregon governor passes law that suspends math, reading proficiency requirements for HS graduates".
Welcome to Idiocracy.
@Cup_of_H2O you’re very invested in my life little guy. I keep you up at night 😂 got you setting an alarm to reply to me
0 likes@Kenny Ryan
1 likewith that attitude squid game must be easy for you, and the people who failed the dalonga are stupid idiots. Why don’t they just not shake their hands?
And here’s a question, Calculate the mass of 4mol of Sodium Chloride. It should be easy for you to answer that in 30secs to 1 min.
Another one to do in a minuite, locate the glabella.
stress = stupidity , no matter how simple it it there are studies in this so just give him a break.
And the question can be misinterpreted like wait are we talking about integers because if now all of the choices are the answers.
Maths isn’t the only thing that makes someone intelligent, if you were some banker of course you need to be perfect at maths, it’s stupid to be a banker and not be good at maths. However you forgot other people have other jobs and are better than you in many more aspects. Since maths literally is your job and life, I’m not surprised this is the only time you’ll shine in the comments by being an arrogant showoff. Maybe have a little empathy, or maybe you can’t since you lack wisdom.
For a supposed millionaire, you seem to be dwelling nicely with us plebs in the comments.
@Cup_of_H2O
0 likes> "What? Square numbers weren't in the question?"
Nice strawman, but nowhere in my arguments did I even assert that square numbers were not present in the question. You misunderstood me. I was making an argument about the incoherence of the question because of how dubious the question was with instructing what to do with utilizing the square numbers. We all know what a square number is, sure, except the question asked "Which of these square numbers" - then proceeds to give only natural/whole numbers which ultimately convoluted the objective of the question. You have to be specific with what you want the test taker to do with whatever material that is included in the question, otherwise, it's no wonder that the contestant or arguably even the audience will be convoluted with what the question is specifically asking.
@Cup_of_H2O
1 like> "How many brain cells doesn one need to figure out those were"
Attacking another strawman? Nowhere did I say that it is difficult to understand what square numbers are. I was making an argument based on the fact that because none of the multiple-choice answers were square numbers, which is what the question said they were, perplexed what exactly should have been looking for. Again, if you want your contestant to specifically utilize a mathematical concept in a certain way, then wording "which of these square numbers" when you're giving whole/natural numbers is NOT a good idea. Honestly, you misunderstanding what my argumentative basis is being built upon, when it isn't that hard to understand is even more pathetic showing than the contestant getting the wrong answer in the video.
@Dunno thanks..so would be 9 plus 16
0 likes@Jmu76featuring No problem! :)
0 likes@Kenny Ryan you talk too much trash for someone that lives in a 700k apartment in the middle of NY you work so hard for nothing when other states have a qtr of the living prices and just as good of jobs enjoy being miserable forever to pay your bills
1 like@Kenny Ryan you come off as the most childish one here your ego is bigger than your mouth you don't get a new woman every week you liar and if you did it further explains what kind of person you are and you are a sucker if you live in a 700k apartment in the nastiest loudest city in the US nice financial mistake in my state you can buy a mansion for around that price with some nice land not some homeless crackhead peeing on my doorstep
1 like@Handsome Stranger Thank you 😭🤧
0 likesOmg this reply section is a dumpster fire...
4 likesThis comment section got heated up
1 like@Waluigi HentaiLover69 It sure did ☺️ Quite a few people trying to defend innumeracy 😂
1 likeHoly shit he’s alive
1 like@Damian Justice The question asked about square numbers and gave square numbers,I don't see where the problem is.
1 like@Damian Justice You clearly said there were no square numbers. "I was making an arguement based on the fcat that none of the multiple- choice answers were square numbers"
2 likes@Damian Justice square numbers are whole numbers.
1 like@Damian Justice Your arguement is just based upon the fact that the question is wrong which it isn't. It's clearly written square numbers and gave square numbers. Idk what your dumb brain is thinking when writing that.
1 like@Handsome Stranger Oh no I'm so interested in you. You keep me awake at night....idk about that but I sure love talking to bs people cuz that just gives me a feeling I'm not dumb.
1 like@Cup_of_H2O you’re very interested in my life. That’s why you even replied to me in the first place. Who even are you? Lmao. A literal nobody weirdo
0 likes@DiamondsInSight same 😂
0 likes@Kenny Ryan keep on going dude ignore the handsome stranger prolly his mom and dad cut his balls and kicked his dumb ass out of the house so he is using his anger on the internet when irl hes just a castrated homeless kiddo in the garbage can 😂
1 like@Cup_of_H2O
1 like> ”square numbers are whole numbers.”
Even if this is the case, most people are taught what exactly square numbers are as well as what whole and natural numbers are (whole and natural numbers are mathematically related btw). Based on how most people, including myself, are taught what these kinds of numbers are, it is not so hard to see how many are conditioned to remember square numbers separate from whole numbers. Because of this, it is understandable now what really obfuscated the question. It is absurd to presuppose that people are going to see a whole numbers and say “oh that’s a square number” - like no... your brain is going to naturally think differently to try to figure out wtf is going on with the question.
I see your comments are getting much shorter based on you lackadaisically responding to a small fraction of what I was arguing. Makes sense considering how much you’re repeating yourself without even acknowledging any of my supporting reasoning in an attempt to shield your ego. Can’t say that I relate, tho. 😂
@Cup_of_H2O ahh the counter bully from our side 😊
0 likesidk how to do it either
1 like@Damian Justice dam whole numbers and natural numbers are related didn't know that. Also when the question clearly mentions square numbers it isn't suprising to think "oh yea 16,25,36 and 49 are square numbers". What the hell are you even trying to say at this point is so unclear that even a blind person can see more clearly. Point out what exactly is wrong with the question. It said square numbers and gave square numbers. 5² isn't a square number. It's something that has ti be solved to get a square number.
1 like@Damian Justice I'm repeating the same thing multiple times because what you are pointing out is the same thing. The fact that the question said square numbers and aren't square numbers. What are you even trying to say? Your dumb Barun apparently thinks mentioning square number and giving a square number is very different. And your brain is trying to figure out? How many seconds does it take to realize 16 is a square number?
1 like@Damian Justice I'm giving shorter replies cuz all your arguements are the same. "Question complicated cuz said square number but gave whole numbers". Doesn't even make a bit of sense. 16 is a square number. That's a fact. You can't go "oh 16 is a whole number so people can't think it's a square number even though square number is clearly mentioned in the q".
1 like@Handsome Stranger No I'm just interested in what bullshit people think. I am me. The one you are having trouble roasting unlike the poeple who actually showed reason.
1 likeThe question was badly worded
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O having trouble roasting? 💀 I don’t think you realize how uninterested I am in any of you. You’re not the only one trying to get my attention 😂 just by even replying to me I’ve already beaten you. You literally read all my comments above. I’m in your head 😁 welcome to the club kiddo
3 likes@Handsome Stranger Lol you're uninterested? Then why u writing those million replies? Hypocritic if u ask me. Oh no you sure haven't beaten me,you are just trying your damn hardest to think that u did. Your attention? Hey hey I don't ever remember saying reply ti me so you're prolly just doing your best to protect yourself lel. All ur comments? Don't confuse myself with you,I am not a neet and have stuff to do. Welcome to which club? On let me guess,your dumbass club. Sorry not interested
2 likes@Cup_of_H2O not trying hard at all with you or anyone here. It’s a bunch of virgins. I’m not the only person you’ve been replying to in these comments. You’re down bad for attention. & ya you’re in the club of losers who I’ve sent to the shadow dimension 😂 hold this L middle aged virgin
1 likeI'm so shit at math it's not even funny. And I work in IT 😂
0 likes@Prathamesh Jha Nope. I left home to study law in college 18 years ago and now own my own place. I’m not angry at all. I’m just shocked at the stupidity of the contestant and the audience on an extremely basic elementary school math question
0 likes@Handsome Stranger 😂 Lol. Oh dear. You come across as very bitter and angry in your comments. Were you bullied at school because you can’t do math? I guess that’s why you empathise so much with this imbecile contestant.
1 likeYou’ll never beat me by the way. I make more in one month than you earn in a whole year 😎 And all it takes is a little knowledge of math 😁
P.S.: You can’t read. I never mentioned the word ‘emails’ as you suggested. If you were able to read you would have seen the word used was ‘entails’. So now we can add illiteracy to your innumeracy 🤣
@Cup_of_H2O I wouldn’t waste energy on him. Anyone who needs to call themselves “handsome stranger” on an online forum has a lot of identity issues. I think he struggled with math in school, and that’s why he’s so protective of the dumbass in the video.
0 likes@Big Boy Wow. Plenty of anger there dude 😂 I guess life sucks when you can’t do math 🤣
0 likes@Kenny Ryan and you come across as old and lonely. I already beat you by you even replying to me. I’m over 10 years younger than you and actually have a HOUSE. Not a 1 man apartment because no woman was desperate enough to give you the time of day. Old man has no girl so he just spends his life on YouTube arguing about math 😭😭😭
3 likes@Handsome Stranger Process of elimination. You’re obviously in your twenties - likely 23-28, even though you have the temper and stubbornness of a pre-teen. Quite sad seeing you waste your time on this over such a long period of time tbh. You’re evidently unable to get this thread out of your head
0 likes@Sigurd H.S what do you mean obviously? you literally read that I have my masters and that I’m more than 10 years younger than 36 💀 and I only come back when someone @‘s me. Just how you’re doing right now because I struck a nerve with all you down bad weirdos
1 like@Kenny Ryan nah your just naive my grandpa was half illiterate and was a millionaire owned his own semi repair business + owned a 400 acre farm that he passed down to his son I understand math and square root just fine i learned it in basic algebra quit trying to act like a genius because you know the answer to a simple question the answer is literally 25 you happy now,? People like you are the dirt on the bottom of my shoe
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Yea ig living in their own parents house counts as their house. Stop being a neet and get a job. You are just an attention seeker who says that they have no interest in any of us yet proceeds to write millions of replies. Or maybe you just don't have a life lol.
0 likes@Big Boy That's not the point tho. Some people are literally defending other adults for not being able to answer this simple question. That's the main issue.
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O you literally ready my past replies that aren’t even to you and reply to them 😂 I have a job, I have a house, I have a car, I have a gf, I have a masters. I live rent free in your head. Talk to me once you get some pussy and some money 😂😂
1 likeFor all of you trying to rationalize why the contestant could not get the correct answer, I learned how to do this in math over 47 years ago and can still remember how to do this in my head…with no smartphones, applewatches, etc.
1 like@Handsome Stranger how was the question "unclear"? I think the problem here is that the american public in general isn't just terrible at math, but also has one of the lowest reading comprehension levels in all of the developed world.
1 likeSawm tluanga the problem here isn't just the lack of basic math skills, it's also the complete unwillingness to accept that there IS a problem in the American education system that can't just be solved with "Well, [X] is useless because I'll never use it in REAL LIFE!!" People who don't have the ability to read well AREN'T likely to end up in any job that isn't low-skill/low pay.
0 likes@Wounded Angel Sure, but on average people with a college degree make more than those without or those who went to trade school, more than enough to make up for the cost of the degree.
0 likes@fmagalhaes1521 Exactly. Well said. There's no excuse for not getting this question right. If college students can't understand it then there's something seriously wrong with our education system.
0 likes@Damian Justice Can you give an example of another valid interpretation of the problem?
0 likesId probs know it if i understood the wording of the question.
0 likesE
0 likes420
0 likesDidn’t understand the question
0 likes@Izuki Katzuki Lmao it isn't algebra, it's simple multiplication and addition
0 likes@Dansburst Studios that’s cool man. Didn’t ask
0 likes@Kenny Ryan intelligence is not just math. Ignorance isn’t stupidity.
2 likes@Kenny Ryan any question is difficult not knowing information about the subject.
1 like@Faisal oh so It is American bullshit
0 likesMakes sense now i dont understand what the hell she meant with Square number
@Faisal you're scoffing at American knowledge in an American app using American innovation which is the Internet with an American invented tech (smartphone/pc/laptop).
1 likeI got it right however I can see how the wording can confuse people. Though in saying that I got the answer right but with the wrong logic soooo🤷♀️🤷♀️
1 like@Z3t487 Education, this is sad. I’m just saying we can and will do stupid things if we panic.
0 likesWhy do you think people swim against rips when they’re panicking?
@Kenny Ryan I don’t think you realize that’s a sarcastic reference to squidwards art.
0 likes@Kalel Castro The governor was in big panic when she passed that law?
0 likes@Kenny Ryan if you get so pissed over auto correct then I don’t know what other little things you get pissed off, perfect example of a Grammar Nazi lol.
0 likesAlso, hmmm I see also a lack of empathy, a lot of ego and showing off properties without proof or any merit, wouldn’t be surprised if you have a borderline narcissistic personality.
It’s almost funny, you’re basically. “I’m smarter than you you’re stupid” and that’s literally your only argument, only this time it’s just copy pasting synonyms from thesaurus to keep up your “intellectual” act.
For a bank executive it’s funny someone that important with little spare time would even bother commenting yet see this video and then comment on how superior they are and also seem to forget that this competitor is a human being.
@Z3t487 it’s not good when maths is not being prioritized.
0 likesI’m just mentioning those who call this guy stupid, flaunt about how smart they are and don’t realize he’s panicking.
“How could I EVER work for a dumbass?” “How could I ever be wrong?” , questions a real bank executive would say.
@Handsome Stranger What an insufferable loser you make
0 likes@Wounded Angel Know the answer to that question AND knowing which knowledge matters most between reality shows and maths makes him smart
0 likes@George Not at all, you just can't read
0 likes@ZipMap cool with me. Cry about it 😂
0 likes@Mr. Stickerton Fair, if you're not used to math problem formulation it's probably harder to understand
0 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago They don't have to be consecutive what do you mean?
0 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago Some people can't read that's all. It's not about interpretation at all. The question has a single meaning for anyone who can properly read english
0 likes@Handsome Stranger At some point when you grow older you will realize that you were just a big mouth loser that has no knowledge whatsoever. For your personal growth I wish you for it to happen soon
0 likes@ZipMap you’re still crying 😂 I bet you’re typing on an android. You have no job and no money lmao hold this L
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Making 6 figure a year working in IT but sure bro
1 like@ZipMap ah yes the classic 6 figures comment. Y’all gotta let it go 😂 you literally live at your moms house working a 9-5. Hold this L bum
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Whatever makes you sleep at night
0 likes@ZipMap I’m gonna sleep real good knowing a made another bum cry on the internet cause they’re broke 😂 get a job, move out your parents house, then come back. Loser 😭😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Sure
0 likes@ZipMap cry more 😘
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Your pathetic emojis don't reach me. I'd be willing to bet you're the one crying right now
0 likes@ZipMap they obviously hurt you . That’s why you brought them up 😂 but cool kiddo. Join my fan club like everyone else mentioning me ❤️
0 likes@Handsome Strangersome people can be so free to reply all day 😂😂pretty sure u suck irl and try to be the cool kid on the net
0 likeshere you go take your L back
@Handsome Stranger Lol I just love how people can lie as much as they want in the internet. You would have written a million replies if u had a life. You are just a shut in neet in your twenties. Go get a job
0 likes@Handsome Stranger I'm also realizing the people who use emojis are the biggest losers. Go ahead feel free to cry now. Lel imagine thinking copying burn quotes from Google makes u cool.
0 likesAnd just think how much dumber the average person has gotten since this aired many years ago. It’s scary!
0 likesI was struggling for a bit because I thought the two numbers had to be the same. None of the answers match that.
0 likes@Prathamesh Jha whatever that means. L’s aren’t refundable. You can hold on to that for life kiddo 😂 plus you make Minecraft videos... smh L
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O I got you typing multiple 2:1 replies. & I’m hurting you so much you think I’m googling my replies. This is too easy 😂😂😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger who hurt u
1 like@Handsome Stranger Ok but ur an architect KEKW.
1 like@Handsome Stranger I'll take the math over the gal every single time.
1 like@Yahallo your moms teeth hurt me 🤕
0 likes@Komarler I am. Good reading skills kiddo
0 likes@X 7 I don’t think a person like you has much of a choice 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Lol Hurting me? Wheeeezee. I'm literally having fun seeing you write the same shit cuz your uncreative ass can't come with anything new
0 likes@Cup_of_H2O don’t need to be creative. It’s too easy getting you mad when I barely type anything 😘
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Yes my reading skill is pogchamp. Your art skill very good too can you draw me painting.
1 like@Komarler not a chance
0 likes@Faisal at least we don't oppress women
0 likes@Handsome Stranger that video was uploaded by my brother dumbass
0 likes@Prathamesh Jha ya ya ya your brother. Go play your Minecraft and stfu 😂😂
0 likesSawm tluanga i dont disagree that they are successful.But again,they are successful idiots.Even if they dont need maths in their work,this is 6th standard shit anyone who went to school should know this
0 likes@lolblitz gaming this handsome stranger guy is just another one of those internet bitches who shit talk like a child for nothing
0 likesI think the answer is easy only the question confused me a lot xD Maybe cuz I'm used to german translated maths but idk
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Imagine flexing on someone when you live in burgerland
0 likes@Oskar Öhman burgerland? Ok 😂 whatever that means little guy
0 likes@Handsome Stranger dont you even know thw name of your country? Learn some geography kid
1 like@Oskar Öhman the name of my country is burgerland? 😂 ya I guess I saw that on a map once. Foh you’re corny af 😂😂😂
0 likesActually all of the options are correct if you really think about it.
0 likesThey never specified if the numbers whose squares we're looking for need to be natural numbers or not. 🤔
@Handsome Stranger mens, I don't eat's corn I prefer rye
0 likes@Handsome Stranger map pff who need that, trust me I am a proffesionel cartographer
0 likes@George what's unclear about it? Sum of two smaller square numbers!
0 likes@chuffsteruk here, it's simple. Sum is the answer u get when u add. So, Sum of 2 smaller square numbers are the Sum of 3 square=9 + 4 square= 16. Meaning 16+9. 25! None of the other options had smaller square numbers which added up correctly. Did that make sense?
0 likes@Magnus Wootton its true. It's very difficult to keep ur head in such situations. I couldn't do basic 2 digit number addition in front of my father because I was scared of getting it wrong. (Which I could do alone btw)
2 likes@Nikopencil yes. same here.
0 likes@Nikopencil it actually happens when i try to speak to people, my brain turns off. :)
0 likes@Handsome Stranger why do you take pride in stupidity?
0 likes@Oskar Öhman that’s cool man. Professionally find your way out of my notifications
0 likes@Sprawlz why do you take pride in not shutting tf up ?
0 likes@Handsome Stranger you bring disgrace to the masterpiece that is "Bold and Brash". smh 😔
1 like@Sprawlz I am the living embodiment of squidward. Please leave my notifications
0 likes@Handsome Stranger You would be creative if u could me. You think u made me mad? How cute.
1 like@Cup_of_H2O “if you could me” you can’t even type. You’re obviously mad cause you felt the need to mention me after reading my past replies to other people. I offended you 😂
0 likes@Handsome Stranger Lol the guy who says he has the least interest in me goes ahead and gives a reply in like 5 mins.
1 likeYes it is
0 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago I did as well bro
0 likes@Elon muskrat • 22 days ago ok kid
0 likesThis thread has devolved into people insulting each other.
0 likes@Handsome Stranger No, I didn't "literally read that". What, you think your thoughts are so interesting I'd read your 500 comments? No, thank you. What do you have a master's in? Quarreling? Anyhow, you're living proof intelligence and education don't go hand in hand. Enjoy spending your next 3 months going back to this thread thrice a day while you tell yourself you're in everybody's head lmao. I love deluded people.
0 likes@Handsome Stranger men's I is n't pro notification gamer men((((
0 likes#Trump2022
0 likes#Bolsonaro2022
0 likes9 + 16 = 25.
1 likeWe automatically know that 16 must’ve added up to 25, so all we’d have to do is subtract 16 from 25 if we felt like it, but the answer truly sticks out as 25 be4 that
I'm the last comment haha lol 🤣
0 likes@Handsome Strangeryou look like one of the people who failed 5th grade💀
1 likeIt's the way they worded it that was confusing.
0 likesPeople are so fucking rude in these replies, holy shit. I didn't know it either (I also thought it was 16 cause 8+8? idk i thought 8 were square numbers, whatever a square number is) and that's fine, where I live I never learnt them and even if I did, it's just not-very-useful math. And I don't fucking care of what you think, there is no shame in not knowing that
0 likesthis comment is so cringe lol, of course it isn't difficult because you probably know that 16 and 9 are squares or used the pythagorean theorem from high school. seriously, people need to stop expecting others to know what square root is and see them as dumb for it lol, this question is even asked wrongly from a mathematical viewpoint, there are complex and negative answers and this question as a whole is both difficult and not depending on if you know these kinds of problems.
0 likesSHOW NAME
0 likes@Handsome Stranger I love seeing your expression at 02:20 in this video. You are literally so stupid you don’t even understand the host’s explanation of the answer 😂😂😂
0 likes@Neven how this question is written in a confusing way ☠️ it's very simple English - which square is also the "sum" of smaller squares... Idk why people even reading it as product when it clearly says Sum
0 likesAstonishing, this is primary level maths in the UK
5 likesReplies (1)
It is also primary level in the US. I'll bet if you polled adults 30-60 years old in the UK with this question the majority would fail also. Most people don't care about or use math at all beyond balancing their statement. They use a calculator, phone or PC to do math.
2 likesAt the first moment 16 really seemed the most likely answer, but as soon as the question is read properly and some math is switched on, it was very easy to get to 25.
11 likesReplies (5)
How did 16 really seem the most likely ans? Some preliminary logic or just some intuition?
0 likes@Jane Miller Actually, I don't know. At the first moment intuitively it just seemed that 16 is a very suitable number to contain small square numbers (2x2, 3x3, combined with something, maybe 4x4 plus square of 0 counts). But it's still hard to explain, how so many people in the audience managed to give a wrong answer after so much time for thinking.
1 like@Jane Miller they made it misleading everyone assumed it said product of two smaller square numbers so 2^4 * 2^4 is 16
1 like@Kriegter 2^2 * 2^2, but I see your point
0 likes@Jane Miller yeah typo
0 likes25 is a square number (5^5) and is the sum of 9 (3^3) and 16 (4^4), which are respectively smaller numbers.
0 likesThis took me a minute. I don't know how much time you have on a live show to figure out. It actually took me a few times to reread the question. It wasn't super hard but also isn't a straight forward math question; for most people with basic math skills, it takes trial and error to go through all the possibilities.
I feel like the audience just had a facepalm moment when the guy couldn't answer such a simple question. They came together, pulled one on him and clapped their hearts out.
6 likesGenius.
Replies (2)
70 % of them also couldn't answer the question correctly.
0 likesNope. Just average people. Most of them probably forgot what square number is. If you do not use something your brain removes it and replaces it with valuable information, like the measures of Kim Kardashian.
0 likesThis is the exact wrong kind of question to ask the audience.
6476 likesReplies (35)
In America
413 likes@PureLove Having lived in many different places overseas, the average person is pretty dumb internationally, but the way math is taught in America is fundamentally poor, and they don’t realize it until they start struggling with more complex algebra in collegiate-level mathematics.
295 likes@The WovenMantis I was once a math teacher for several years. Nothing wrong with the way math is taught.
191 likesKids are just convinced that it's unimportant so they don't try.
They have excuses like "my parents are terrible at math and they're successful" and the frustrating "when am I ever going to need this in life?"
@steamroller82 Your last sentence is what's wrong and the fact that it's frustrating you only means that you haven't notice the difference with kids those days. They need more pragmatism and concrete. They don't listen to grown-up blindly as they use to do.
80 likesFor example, if a young kids have some trouble to understand 3 + 1, tell him you have 3 candies, how many would you have if I give you 1 more ? The answer would be easier for him to find.
This is available with all level of maths, if you know why, it helps understanding the how. Especially with equations which are as bored to learn than they are usefull in the life.
It's up to you teachers to make your lessons interresting.
That said, I think there is a will to low down the level of knowledge given in schools because it's easier to rule on ignorants swallowing everything and asking for it than to rule on people using their brain to think by themselves. And it's not only in America but all over the western world.
@Gilles Grindel if the students don't care to learn it it won't help
69 likes@Basi I agree with you, they don't care because they don't have to.
19 likesI don't know about your country but in France, no matter if they understand/know/learn, they would be promoted anyway so why would they care ?
And we get 11yo teenagers unable to read what they wrote themselves.
@Gilles Grindel im from germany and i didnt care from class 6 through 10 either bc i would get promoted without doing anything but now in class 11 (i graduate in class 12) im working like normal again bc the work im doing now matters for my degree
2 likesThis also was a vote for democracy!!
1 likeIt's a popular question in Pythagoras' theorem, 3² + 4² = 25
6 likesI creatively taught it here https://youtu.be/59x7KJ1zKvQ
Also a kinda weird and confusing way to ask a question about pygathorean triples
7 likes@steamroller82 It's about the way it is tought psychologically, not just giving the material, but to actually make it go through their head in a way that would spike interest in them. That's what's wrong.. Parents don't necessarily have the time to make their kids interested in math.
14 likes1k like
0 likesYep tricky question you have to think out.
0 likes@steamroller82 strongly disagree. Most of what I saw in my K-12 math seemed to be a terrible way to learn it. The focus was always on memorizing formulas or methods to do something; rarely were we taught, in detail, why the formulas and methods worked.
21 likesWhen you tell someone to memorize a method/formula and keep it completely abstract, they are not learning. They are preparing for a test. They may do perfectly well on that test, but they do not understand the material and they have not learned anything useful.
Even though I went to good schools, math was still usually taught poorly. This is a serious problem with our education.
The reason is a bad idea is because its an easy question if you think about it, but if you dont care enough, you will probably answer on a whim.
1 like@steamroller82 Kids dont want to learn maths cuz its boring and/or annoying to them. I never had that problem. But the reason we need them to learn is cuz the society needs the best minds for maths, cuz the future lies on scientists and only the best of them will create the future. Ofc math relates to like half of all jobs so its for your own good from a smaller perspective and it powers the passion of some. If youre not one of those passionative people or you dont plan to go to a math based jobs, (from societys perspective) we, our kids and technically you too cuz ur a part of society need you to learn math for the future. And we want the best future. Ive seen so many brilliant minds just lose interest in school. Im embarassad to say they were probaply smarter than me but because they didnt care about grades they are going to become plumbers and electricians and im going to be the scientist. We are all just worker ants for the society, always have been. If you dont believe me, then think about where the money is going, who is getting something from ur work. This is not a religion its just one of the ways to comprehend society. Future innovations are the best and only way to get out of this hamster wheel of working, breeding and dying. Math is a giant part of those innovations, mostly about machines to do everything for us and calculations to keep our planet living for the existance of human kind. You can tell them this and the fact that it doesnt matter when they accept this, now or when they are 90, this is just how it is. Does this sound depressing? Ofc it does but theres much much more to that including happiness but i dont have enough time to explain the whole existance of life in every little detail, not even if i talked about it 24/7 365 till i die i wouldnt.
1 like@The WovenMantis u should try studying in Indonesia. Everything is shit
0 likes@Call me Rel Lived in Jakarta for two years actually. Granted, I went to an international school, and Jakarta is certainly not the poorest place in Indonesia, but there was still plenty.
2 likesCrazy how there was so much poverty directly adjacent to huge skyscrapers and malls.
@The WovenMantis where do u went to ?
0 likes@steamroller82 Nah most of you teachers are entitled assholes who think they're doing acts of God by just sitting there spitting words out of a book.
0 likes@steamroller82 imo algebra is only needed in STEM jobs and probably a few other jobs I don't consider. Like, a security guard don't need complex maths.
2 likes@Gilles Grindel lots of people dont actually need to learn math. quit tryna push it onto everyone just b/c u like it
1 like@Glegle Everyone will need basic math at some point in his life, everyone, there is no exception.
3 likesEven without knowing math, it is used for everything and so the best for everyone is to learn it.
It's not about liking it at all. It's about having the control of our life, that's completely different.
You need 2 apples ? You need to know if you have enough money to buy them and for that, you need to count your money you need to be able to read numbers.
Your comment is one of the top 50 clueless comment I read.
What next ? Lots of people don't need to read ?
School is useless ?
What's your true point ? Because I suppose you don't put on the table such a so woke idea for nothing ? What's the schedule behing that, I'm curious.
@Pure Love do you think every other country are math experts or something
0 likes@Berryyy 9+5= 16? 🤣.
0 likes@steamroller82 I've used algebra and geometry in real life, but there was a thing we did in the last year that I couldn't understand, never used again, but was capable of doing. I got grade A but still don't know what the heck it was we did or why.
0 likes@steamroller82 I mean we don't really. how many of us are gonna be on a game show? and really other than this show, game shows don't even ask questions like this
2 likes@The WovenMantis jakbar?
0 likes@Spider Jerusalem Sorry, not familiar Eleuthera the word.
0 likes@The WovenMantis i was asking whether or not it was *jakarta barat(west jakarta).
1 likeok, better this as so should have been,
which side of jakarta did you use to live in?
@steamroller82 the fact that math is frustrating for most students should say that math is improperly taught.
8 likes@steamroller82 Imma gonna calculate the are under a curve bruh. :/
1 like@Logan You have to do major abstractions to actually understand many mathematical formulas in the first place. Much more abstract than the formulas themselves, but abstractions can simplify and uncover hidden relations. Afterall mathematical theories are just abstractions of something which started out to be a specific problem like measuring the area below a curve led to approximating such areas with rectangles which if chosen arbitrarily small measure the area arbitrarily precise. Generalizing this notion of riemann integral to multiple dimensions will uncover that many things which didn't matter in 1dim (but are also happening in 1 dimension just unnoticed) are crucially important such as the path you take to count those rectangles. Generalizing further and further will make you understand the simple case you started from better and better while you expand the tools you have developed to work on much larger classes of problems. That's kind of the history of mathematics.
0 likesI agree that schools relying way too much on teaching facts is a problem but your picture of mathematics isn't accurate. Mathematics is all about abstraction. Without abstraction one can't possibly understand mathematics.
@Isomer Soma ? You just agreed with me and then said that my picture of mathematics was inaccurate. My entire point was that K-12 schools do not encourage or teach any abstraction.
1 like@steamroller82 thing is
2 likesPast taxes
WHEN is it useful to know it without a calculator(obviously besides being on Who Wants To be A Millionaire
If you study math long enough, you will remember the classic example of pythagorean theorem wich consists pf a triangule with sides 3, 4 and 5.
3 likesI recognize that I'm usually unable to answer most of the questions asked in this game show... I'm not even able to answer the $100 or $200 questions... Having said this, this specific question was pretty simple... I'm surprised it was worth $16,000! Sometimes they ask questions that are much more difficult but are only worth $500 or $1,000.
4 likesReplies (2)
The difficulty of the question being asked is different depending on who you ask said question to (or you could say that it is subjective)
0 likesIt's 3rd grade math.
0 likesWhat math teachers think everyday life is like:
8 likesI initially thought that both smaller square numbers must be the same. I was like, "wth, where's the correct answer??". Then I realised they don't have to be the same number lol
4 likesi like the fact that 70% of the people just trolled this dude for not knowing math lol
0 likesPythagoras: Am I a joke to you?
2422 likesHim and the audience: Yes
The audience: gives him the wrong answer Also the audience: claps
Replies (14)
Having 4 results tripped him up. He could not focus on finding the sum squares for 25 so he rushed it probs due to pressure. I cant blame, public school fails to instill the pain of failure you will experience in life if you dont take math seriously.
60 likesI think either the audience was trolling or they thouhht of the sum as the product
13 likes😂😂😂
4 likes@Dkoy Koala yeah that's why I'm good at math, I literally got a near perfect score on my math end of year exams only off by 3 points one time, I make jokes to other people about the fact that I might be able to multiply faster than they can type something out on a calculator, sometimes I win sometimes the calculator wins, god on reread this sounds like me flexing but I swear it's not I just felt it important to talk about personal experience, I also find math problems in things that don't have math in them intentionally but can be created from them for fun when bored, math is in my case a lot more useful but that's just cause of the fact that I've always liked math.
5 likes@Dkoy Koala u shouldn’t have to find 16 and 9 though, 3 square plus 4 square equals 5 square is a common thing to know
12 likesThe applause started with just one person, and a second later a few more people, then everybody. Either they turned on the applause sign or the others began applauding just out of force of habit of applauding when others applaud.
1 like@Dkoy Koala "public school fails to instill the pain of failure you will experience in life if you dont take math seriously."
4 likesah yes, the failure of not winning a gameshow, that thing all of us totally go through. and it's obviously public school's fault for not scaring us enough about this "fact", not that the way schools in general but especially public schools teach math that's the problem. education understander koala.
Baudhayana.
0 likes@up is down It's not
0 likes@Cool Terra Them multiplying skills wont work when u dealing with algebra,geometry or for god sake calculus
0 likes@up is down yeah memorise everything
0 likesReddit
0 likes@Jul W you would be surprised how many people know that
0 likes@Timothé - La santé au masculin Maybe. It's just funnily not a thing I have memorized. Of course you can derive it with Pythagoras
0 likesMan, I was sweating just to imagine being there... Suddenly, I started doubting all the timetables I knew and wanted to cross-check every sum. These games are not only about knowledge... You need to kill every question in cold blood.
2 likesIt's a Pythagorean triplet, so it popped in my head immediately.
1 likeit is either the entire audience trolling him or they all failed maths systematically
0 likesBy just looking at the thumbnail and seeing only the first two options, I did some calculating in my head and guessed the correct answer which was 25. But idk if I would’ve been able to under the pressure that he was feeling.
0 likesI’m not even gonna lie, I’m kind of ashamed of my school, I’m in grade 8 and on grade level math and we are just now learning Pythagoras theorem. I get my homework done as soon as I get it and I bet half the kids in my class would ponder this question for days.
1 like70% of the audience have, apparently, failed math in elementary.
4183 likesReplies (70)
Americans**
161 likesNot 70% it's 78%.
91 likesBut audience are right....Why can't it be 16? Since 16= 4^2 +0^2
217 likesi missunderstood the question and said 16 myself being 4^2 is also 2^4
44 likes@Vikram Tete It would be correct, but since it asked for 2 smaller squares, you can’t just add 16 to 0. If that were the case you could make a case that every answer would be correct.
243 likes@Koichi Hirose How every answer would be correct? Look...16= 4^2+0^2, 25= 4^2+3^2, 36= 6^2+0^2, 49=7^2+0^2....Hence, here we can say that 4^2 and 0 are the smallest pair of square numbers than the rest three pairs.
35 likes@Vikram Tete You're logic is 100% correct, but I think you were misunderstanding my last point. I was saying that if we applied your logic then every answer on the board would be correct (which you proved) and this wouldn't be a question.
126 likes@Vikram Tete the parts where you misunderstood it are,
57 likes1) Square number is like the name for the answer/title (product/sum...) so saying 4^2 isn't the square number itself but like the equation for it.
2) "smaller square..." 16 or 4^2 isn't smaller than 16, they are equal.
no, the question was worded poorly
38 likes@Neal Moody
118 likesThe question was clearly understandable
@Blue Fawkes great...👍👍
0 likesHuê Vĩ Thank you... Got it bro👍
0 likes@Koichi Hirose you are absolutely right bro!! I got it finally👍
3 likes@Shaik Feroze Are you a communist? America is obviously one of the least evil countries in the world and therefore is one of the smartest on average.
4 likesPretty sure I don't start learning about square numbers until middle school. But that's Murican education for you.
6 likesThat’s almost two thirds!
0 likes@Neal Moody question is fine. Phrased correctly. List of square numbers are 0,1,4,9,16,25,36, etc.
7 likesSome of them happen to be the sum of two smaller ones. Like 25 being the sum of 9 and 16, and also 169 being the sum of 25 and 144, etc.
There are infinite cases of that.
Some of them are not the sum of two smaller ones. 9 for instance is not the sum of any 2 smaller squares.
In the options provided on the show, 25 is the only one that is the sum of two smaller squares.
@pandeytium yeah true because 108% - 70% =38%
0 likes@Basi he was referring to the AOL results, which showed 22% of people to be correct, instead of the studio audience who got 30% correct
2 likesIvica Pavic this is wordplay math for small children, it's not real math.
3 likesIt confused even me and I'm really good at math.
Also you are dumb.
70% can’t do 4+3 jeepers!!!!!!!
0 likes@TheSpecialPumpkin NO it says which two smaller SQUARE numbers so 2x4 and 0x4 are not SQUARE numbers! It’s 3x3 add 4x4 to make 25! Really not difficult!
2 likes@Vikram Tete So all the answers are correct? I don't think you're familiar with what's going on here...
0 likes@Shaik Feroze isn't it in uk
0 likes@Vikram Tete bcoz 4^2 is not smaller
5 likes@Vikram Tete This is based on pythagorean triplets. And u can't take 0, as length of side of (real) right angle triangle can't be 0.
1 like@Abhishek.S. Nair that's not the reason you can't use 0. This is about square numbers, not right triangles.
5 likesYou can use 0.
It just doesn't fit. You need two squares that are smaller.
Even though 16 is the sum of 4^2 and 0^2, the 4^2 is not smaller than 16. We need two smaller squares.
The only solution on offer is 25 being 3^2 plus 4^2, since those are each smaller than 25.
@Vikram Tete True
0 likes25 is the only one that you don’t have to add 0^2 for,
1 like@Vikram Tete Read the question again. Sum of two "smaller" square numbers.
3 likes83% because 5% of the ones who voted right are correct by chance
0 likesWhat school did you go to? Went through all of middle school and they still never taught this
2 likes@Vikram Tete it said smaller square number not smallest square number. If it was smallest then it would have make sense
0 likesSame
0 likes@Sede Vacante 😂
1 like@Vikram Tete it can’t be that Bc the question wasn’t asking you to square it it was asking numbers that can be squared when adding 4^2 is wrong Bc we didn’t square the 9 and the 16 basically it was asking which number squared is the sum of two perfect squares with out squaring just adding also I think Yk that since I’m now realizing this was 10 months ago my bad😂
1 likeWhat elementary school teachers square numbers?!
6 likes@Vikram Tete the question saids two ‘smaller’ square numbers
0 likes@Vikram Tete it’s not a square
0 likes@Vikram Tete then you could apply that logic to every single answer. according to your logic, all the answers would be correct.
0 likes@A Texan Kid are you special needs or something because the average person knows what square numbers are by 5th grade
6 likes@JasonStarRising no? Just because my school area sucked doesn’t mean I’m special needs, are you trying to be an asshole?
2 likesUS of A
0 likes@Vikram Tete two SMALLER square numbers. 16 is not smaller thqn 16
2 likes@Vikram Tete The problem stated "two smaller numbers", so your logic doesn't apply to the question since the same numbers are equal, not greater nor less than the other...
0 likes@JasonStarRising man tries to boast that he knows what square numbers are but doesnt know something as simple as that not all people have the same privileges and that not all schools teach the same things, how funny lol
1 like@Direct_Kard If you believe me questioning how someone could go through Texas’s entire middle school education system and still not know what square numbers are is boasting then you’re probably in a similar position, because me claiming I learnt square numbers as a 5th grader is no flex as it’s generally standard within the American education system.
4 likes@Shaik Feroze I'm generalizing here.. Everyone uses a calculator so nobody knows how to do math functions. I never liked math but I always got straight A's all through elementary and high school. I'm a retired service executive who had managed several mid level managers over my career, many of them my age or older who couldn't perform basic addition/subtraction without using a calculator. I'm talking about fellow boomers. Frustrating and too set in their ways and unwilling to want to even learn quick short cuts. People are too too lazy.
1 like@steamroller82 Your explanation and conclusion was exactly the result of the Pythagoran theorem, which is the same thing Abishek said. So you both obtained the correct answer simply using different methods. PS: I pictured the answer the way Abishek explained because that's how it was so ingrained in our minds from school.
0 likesThe audience was thinking the following: from these perfect squares, which number has two equal integers that also are equal to it. Which is A ( 8+8) and C (18+18). But they short circuit to A because B (25/2 = 12.5).
0 likesNo. They just never use this shit in their entire life again. Thats all.
0 likesOur school system sucks
1 likeDude I learned squares and square roots in elementary school but I haven't had to use or know them in YEARS.
0 likes@Sede Vacante >America is one of the least evil countries
5 likesLmao
@Sede Vacante this is the stupidest comment I have ever seen
3 likes@Vikram Tete Zero isen't a Square number
0 likes@Shaik Feroze I don't wanna hear it. We've discovered electricity. Invented the first plane. Made the first mass produced car. Made the first TV. Without us yall might still be way behind
0 likes@MSU Spartans literally any developed country will teach you about square numbers and addition in elementary school
0 likesHis problem wasn't with math. The thing that kicked his ass (and the audience's) is that they can't handle a simple logical process even tho all of the information they need is right in front of them.
1 like@MSU Spartans all the background you'd need to solve it is taught in elementary school, if you can't figure it out from there you're a straight up moron
0 likes@Vikram Tete it is the sum not product of two square able numbers
0 likesThe question is worded so poorly. Also you don't learn this in elementary. Moron trying to insult people for their knowledge, yet they can't even get the grade level right
0 likes@Vikram Tete "But audience are right"
0 likesAre you one of the audiences? Because you're clearly wrong here.
@Bernardberben all shit that was done before you were born....seriously, dumb comments like this are only proving their point 😑
1 like@Neal Moody You will be stronger if you stop looking for excuses for your shortcomings
0 likesI've never been taught this. At all. And I'm in 8th grade taking 10th grade math.
0 likes@Vikram Tete Read the question properly, lol. "Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
0 likesAgain, the important part..."SUM OF TWO SMALLER SQUARE NUMBERS"
16= 4^2+0^2 is an invalid answer. Thats 16 = 16+0, which is NOT what the question is asking. 16 is not less than 16. 16 is equal to 16. So, you aren't summing 2 smaller square numbers to make a bigger square number. One of the squares you are summing is not smaller, therefore, the answer is wrong if you say 16, 36 or 49. 25 is the only correct answer.
They don't teach Pythagorean theorem in elementary school
0 likesMiddle school*
0 likes@steamroller82 The only explanation which said it best.
0 likesThis took me a decent bit of time before realizing a 3,4,5 right triangle solves this very simply
0 likesI chose the same option the guy chose, I didn’t know he was going to choose it until 55% of the audience chose option A. Never trust audience in math. Only the math expert one in the audience
1 likeWhat’s even worse than him not being able to get it is that only 30% on the audience picked the right answer, the majority picking another, incorrect option
0 likesBru, im 15 and the question flew completely over my head thinking it was a complicated math problem. The second when I asked my dad for help when he was drinking a beer, he instantly told me the answer. I'm like dam it, need more sleep.
10 likesReplies (2)
You need more beer.
9 likesYou need more brain cells
0 likesI know what the question means, but I paused to think, if I was in such a real stressful situation I would need a lot of time to think.
1 likeAsking the audience on a math question only works if the majority of the audience knows math... I wouldn't rely on them.
6023 likesReplies (53)
zolikoff The mystery is why so many of them thought it was 16. What, did the idiots all copy off of each other?
231 likesnotcyndi Because humans are naturally bad at mental arithmetic, especially when asked to do it quickly.
90 likesnotcyndi its because most people mistook 'product' for 'sum'. The question setter was obviously aware of this sort of thing so she/he put in 16 as an answer to help drive the mistake
93 likesRingoIta So? Where do you get the impression that we don't learn it in high school too? That doesn't change the fact that a) Memories fade (especially for the people in the audience, who are a wide range of ages), b) Being taught something in school doesn't mean you were ever good at it, c) Schools, at least North American ones, weren't teaching the same level of math 20 or more years ago that they are now (might not be an excuse for the contestant, but is probably one for a lot of audience members), and d) Humans are naturally bad at math. Don't make this an "Americans are idiots" moment, because it isn't. If you must be so obnoxiously nationalist about it, at least blame American schools.
42 likesNoriMori Do not blame the schools, blame the teacher. I do think the reason why most people dont like maths are the horrible bad mathteachers.
26 likes+C3nturyFox I knew a kid who got in trouble constantly because he actively refused to stop using l33tsp33k in English class.
12 likesI taught that kid. I almost failed him but the school made me "help him along" and I quit.
Fuck you.
Terumi Yūki
3 likesAnd people wonder why languages are being used so poorly. Your supervisors need to be sacked for forcing you to give a child a pass, when the child did not show competence in the subject being studied.
75IFFY Nowadays schools care much more about how they look to the state as opposed to how educated their students end up. There's another side to it though, if a school has low test scores they won't get funded as much. Tell me how that makes sense.
13 likesSorry, I cant find any way to say that it makes sense. Its like the state wants to actively reduce the populations level of education!!
3 likesLinking funding to results in any government run/state responsible entity is just wrong. Whether its police, education or immigration/customs, et al. The only people that get benefits are those that dont need it, and the ones that are vulnerable and need help get the short straw at the least, or blatantly preyed upon at worst.
I hope that you find a good school that appreciates you. :)
Math is intuitive, language varies. That's why people got it wrong. It has nothing to do with calculations.
4 likes+zolikoff I was cracking so hard when I said to myself "no dont listen to the audience!, Its 25 dammit." Then he listen to the audience LOL!!.
3 likesThis question is very easy to answer if you are trained as well as I am to interpret what may be a tricky math question to a really simple question. The square of these numbers is those 4 numbers they give you.
The sum of two square numbers, could be any unrelated numbers squared that add to 25. The question should really say two square whole numbers or something, but I do not want to be an ass.
Anyways it amazes me that most audience voted for A.
+Ghost I'm guessing most of the audience voted for A because they don't know the difference between a sum and a product. 4*4=16, and 2*2=4, but 4*4 is a product, not a sum, which is what the question asked for.
2 likes+Terumi Yūki That response to Fox was unnecessary and Fox makes a very good point.
1 likeIt IS mostly down to the bad teachers, but sometimes it's not, sometimes it is down to the structure in set place for the teachers. The main problem is that the bad teachers should not even be allowed to teach in the first place.
Education and schooling needs a complete overhaul in my opinion. Up teachers wages but also up the requirements to enter teaching. As a government you are saying how much you value teaching by the standard of teachers you allow and the wage you pay them.
At the moment, crap teachers are teaching and people who would be very good in teaching are turned off by the lower wages in comparison to other careers they can enter with they high qualifications. The result is you just get left with trash people who didn't do so well in their own education, going in to teach. And so the cycle continues.
+zolikoff It's bad to ask the audience if you live in the USA :)
15 likes+zolikoff Right ask the audience about math.... When for normal people, almost 80% of your friend would say they hate math. If you think about it carefully, it is suicidal.
21 likesThe MC is very kind to actually hint "they are messing you up! use other life line!!!"
And the crowd cheering at the end. It is like applauding and saying. "LMAO you believe us?!?"
zolikoff they are most likely tricking the guy
0 likesMy 13 year old son just pointed out that 0 squared + 4 squared is 16. So, A is acceptable it seems. Unless you don't think 0 is a number. But everyone I know would say 0 is a number.
4 likesBy that logic, they're all acceptable then, since all of them are squared numbers which could be added to 0 squared to get the same answer.
9 likesExactly.
0 likesDarkNSinth That's not true. The question specifically says "...the sum of two smaller square numbers"; therefore, the number itself and 0 may not be used.
14 likeslast time i checked the sum of 5 and 0=5 for example so you can add 0 and get the identity
0 likesSt.Clair Bij The question requested "the sum of two smaller square numbers", and "last time I checked", 5 squared is not smaller than 5 squared. Again, 0 and 5 may not be used to achive the correct answer.
9 likesyeah, but random usually equals out and the knowledgeable ones stand out
1 likei didn't know participants need to answer the questions QUICKLY. I didn't even know there was a time limit.
2 likesmost people nowadays wouldn't know how to answer this, this quickly cuz we rely too much on our calculators even tho we study like over 12 hours math per week in our university i can't even remember the last time i actually manually calculated something like the product of numbers with 2 degits
2 likesYou ask the audience about pop culture question. Math and science you phone a friend.
8 likesReflexPoint Not really. They're asking for the sum of two SMALLER numbers.
3 likes4^(2) + 0^(2) = 16
16 + 0 = 16
16 isn't smaller, it's equal to. Besides, you can say the same thing for every other number combination mentioned.
zolikoff Audience is for pop culture questions only. They never get shit that requires actual thinking right.
4 likeszolikoff but majority being this bad is catastrophe
1 likeThis is 5th grade math, how do so many people not know this??
2 likesMaths*
1 likeIf you know what sum is and what a square is, then you can solve this question. Quit making up excuses.
1 like+The Lord *Math.
1 likeWouldn't be advisable to ask an American audience a math question
2 likeszolikoff Pls watch https://youtu.be/K2g30TBNg_Q and SUBSCRIBE IF U LIKE IT
0 likesJesus fuck. Even if you were not a math student u learn about squares and square roots like in 5th
2 likes75IFFY sir, or madamn, product is mutliplication. I came across this video one day and I see that a lot of people are spreading incorrect information. The smaller square numbers than 16 are: 1, 4, 9, which of these two numbers make a product of 16? 4, and 4 again. The way the question is formulated implies that the two numbers are different. So the truth is, the audience does not have the mathematical thinking capacity.
2 likes75IFFY It's*
0 likeszolikoff call your math teacher😂
0 likesThe majority of the audience was correct!
0 likesA ton of people are saying the audience are bad in maths, But maybe Just maybe They dont give a fuck
1 likezolikoff
0 likesfor a French this question makes no sense
we would formulate this question rather like that:
which of these numbers is equal to the sum of squares of numbers smaller than its square root?
75IFFY if the question is about the product, 16 and 36 are correct.
0 likesnotcyndi isn't about idiot is about learning
0 likesNice im indian, i knew the answer,btw they be like: they took errr jerbs....boi could have considered the fact that those two squared number must have to be smaller than 25, and what are rhose, those are 4,9,16 now add and see if it meets your requirements
0 likesthat too American audience...
2 likesnotcyndi lol ikr
0 likesAlexis Beuve I'm french and the question made perfect sense to me. Why would other languages formulate sentences like yours?
1 likeThey DIDN'T know what 1s and 2s we're: they said it was bass beats, and NOT TURN TABLES 🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@DarkNSinth this is an oversight in the wording of the question. Usually in mathematics "square numbers" and "perfect squares" are defined over the natural numbers, which excludes 0.
1 like@Miles Reid I don't think 16 was necessarily set as a trap - the answers are 4 consecutive squares
1 like@Smol Boye It's not an oversight, because the question specifies "smaller" squares
1 like@notcyndi I immediately thought of square root numbers. square numbers is just a weird word for me, sum of squares make more sense but the fact that it said square numbers made me initially think 16 because of 4.
0 likesat least he's honest about what he doesnt know
1 likewhat's more shoking is that 70% of the audience are clueless
I do not know where I will be when I'll be his age but I don't think I'll ever forget the 3-4-5 right triangle.
0 likesTo be fair I read the question wrong several times and got 16 until I realised the end segment of what the question was asking
1 likeSince the sum is small (Max 49) it doesn't take long if you start at one, squaring each successive number in your head. Once you get to four you should have the answer already.
1 likeDoing it under the pressure of a TV show is a different beast entirely.
This is actually a hard question given that there are two unknown variables. He has to do the guess and check method in his head in a high pressure environment. Much easier to do this when you are at home with external help like pencil and paper.
0 likesReplies (1)
It's not a hard problem
0 likesThe one guy who got the audience to start clapping is a legend.
2332 likesReplies (13)
Nah they’re just evil
109 likesThat's the guy who is paid to jump up and get the auidence to clap..the audience is already instructed to clap enthusiastically whenever the 'clap guy' does this. I should know, my job was to punch anyone who didn't clap.
132 likes@secretsausage1 How dare you punch me. I had to spend nights at the hospital.
45 likesYeah… got the audience to clap. He totally didn’t just get it wrong himself.
4 likesWatch it be the one guy who said 49.
8 likes😂
1 like@secretsausage1 Exactly. There is always someone who encourages to clap
2 likesMust be a backbencher
1 likeWYSI
1 likeIt was a math teacher. No, seriously...
1 like@Tredenix 😂
0 likesthe question was worded poorly.
2 likes@AC it was easy, jesus
0 likesI feel so bad watching him get the wrong answer knowing the right one.
0 likesAt first glance it seems simple, but there could be a bunch of different combinations of square numbers that you'd have to work out. A paper and pen could help.
0 likesMy mom could've figured that question out with enough time like imagine failing that
0 likesI'm surprised this took me some time to think. Then just realised that the sum was 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. Finally lol
3 likesI’m stoned right now so I thought I would test myself. I figured it out just before it went green. my thought process was chaotic (Experiment conclusion - don’t do drugs if you need to do math)
0 likesThe audience really just did him dirty and started clapping
1229 likesReplies (6)
Y’know, it really makes me wonder if some of these people deliberately answered wrong out of spite...
52 likes“Look at this guy! Who does he think he is? Using a lifeline on a math question. Pffffft. I should be the one down there. I hope the wrong answer I give helps him lose like he rightfully should!”
@UndertakerU2ber I get gas after eating beans hence answer is 25
10 likes@UndertakerU2ber knowing Americans, I wouldn't be sure of your theory
14 likes@FarGo123 You know all Americans? Or only the stereotypes about them?
11 likesThey had to
0 likes@Mo Atef stereotypes
2 likesAudience: gives the wrong answer
1 likeAlso audience: "it's clapping time, well played"
Using pythgorean theorem would've helped him here. It also would help to know a 3, 4, 5 triangle for this exact instance
0 likesWhen so social pressure let's you down.
1 likeAt least the audience cannot make fun of him now
0 likesHe lost more than 15'000$. He lost the chance to reach the higher prize question :D
1 likeClearing they were thinking of 5^2 + (3i)^2 = 16
7851 likesReplies (197)
LOL
218 likesThey were thinking 16 is 4^2, and 4 is 2^2. They misunderstood the question.
539 likes@homeboi808 16 is 4^2 and 4 is 2^2 But you're trying to make 25! 16+4 is not 25! at least not where I come from.
66 likes@Jollys Heldone The question said nothing about 25. It said what square number is the sum of two other square numbers. The audience misunderstood that as what square number has its square root also being a square number (and the sum of 2 and 2 is 4, so that also makes it easy to see confusion).
206 likes@homeboi808 Agreed. But the sum of 20 wasn't even one of the answers? how can you be confused?
14 likesSnekan 2003 i is root 2 isn't it?
3 likesSnekan 2003 Ahh! yeah that's right, one is irrational and one is imaginary. Been a long time.
7 likesJollys Heldone 2+2=4, they were thinking “What square number is also a square number and is made up of the sum of its squares”.
33 likes@Jollys Heldone factorial it is .. if i am right !!
3 likes@Mukul Sharma Yeah, I'm thinking "What have I got" I've got 4, 9, 16, oh hang on, 9+16 works? there can't be more than one correct answer, surely, OK question master, 25 final answer, this isn't rocket surgery or brain science lol.
41 likesThe sum of two SMALLER square numbers, 5^2 isn’t smaller than 4^2
30 likesSoumit Sen / Wow, read the question. It has one answer. It said the sum of TWO SMALLER square numbers. 4^2 is not smaller than 4^2. Whereas 3^2+4^2 are both smaller than 5^2
14 likesHaha iota
1 like🤣
1 like@Jollys Heldone i is the imaginary unit. It is equal to the square root of -1.
6 likesWhy can't it be 16? Since 16= 4^2 +0^2
20 likes@Vikram Tete When you raise zero to any power, you'll get zero. Zero isn't a square number. Although, since zero is an identity element of addition, it is valid but not in the context of the question being asked.
24 likesBut 5^2 is not a smaller square number...
10 likes@homeboi808 how the hell did you assume the audience misinterpreted a simple to understand question as a more confusing question that is also completely different from the original question.
10 likes@Aston Smith Nah 0 is definitely a square number.
16 likes@BiggieBigs Because I’m a math teacher and I see these mistakes.
22 likes@BiggieBigs Actually, upon further assessment you speak the truth. This is because you are considering the set of Integers and not the set of Natural numbers (excluding zero). 0 is perfectly reasonable since it is a solution to the square function curve (excluding any constants) and gives a simple output with no decimals when a square root is applied. However, do you think this game show made those underlying assumptions?
3 likesBut is (3i)^2 a 'smaller number'?
9 likesFFS... if you lot were in the audience that day, the result would've been the same.
4 likesThe real answer is
8 likesb)25 = 5^2
5 = 1^2 + 2^2
25 is 5 squared as a (squared number) and 5 is sum of 1 + 2 as (square numbers)
This thread has clearly been created to force me to smash my head into a fucking wall.
18 likesPlease tell me you are all joking!
@Aston Smith 0^0 does not equal 0
9 likesThat's Numberwang!
5 likesQuit using your imagination like that! :P
3 likes@Vikram Tete Because 16 isn’t smaller than 16.
21 likes@Aston Smith Zero is a square number.
8 likes@Davey Jones Yeah I know, I made a boo boo.
2 likes@Jollys Heldone he never said add them together....
0 likes@G J That's what SUM means Einstein! and he's a she!
10 likesstop being so negative.
1 like@Jollys Heldone i is √-1
0 likes@homeboi808 yes I also initially that this as well. Me stupeed
1 like@Jollys Heldone You're not trying to find 25! at all. 25! is 25 factorial, or 25 × 24 × 23 × .... ×1.
10 likes@Aston Smith Well, 0 raise 0 is one, so not entirely correct.
5 likes@Poco Por Poco 0 raise 0 is not defined. The limit is 1 though.
4 likesI know this comment is a troll, and it's quite funny, but 5^ + (3i)^2 = 16 isn't a solution to this particular question because it specifies smaller squares, and with imaginary numbers, you cannot compare them the same way you can with real numbers. In other words, the statements 3i > 5 or 3i < 5 have no meaning because the greater than and less than signs only apply when comparing two real numbers.
17 likesPatel Malvin That's what I was initially thinking until I really studied the question.
0 likesLITTLE MATH HUMOUR :D
1 likei is fiction 😋
0 likesHahaha
0 likes@homeboi808 I certainly did. Sqrt(16) being 4, and sqrt(4) is 2. 2+2=4... which seemed to match the requirements.
1 likeDammit.
Inequalities are not possible in case of complex numbers so basically 3i is not small or big. Your argument is wrong
5 likesI was thinking square root of 4 is 2 and 4x4 is 16
1 likeheres to break this beautiful troll
6 likesas the author says it can be 16 via (5)^2 + (3i)^2
but 5^2 is 25 is greater than 16
question clearly says smaller numbers
so cheers
i love when i prove people wrong 😂😇😂
This shit ain't * real * man
1 likeLooooooooool
0 likesBut 5 is bigger than 4² so it wouldn't count ;)
2 likesis the i a variable?
0 likesLol
0 likesI really wonder if you answered 16 and then provided that as a proof... if they would then let it slide
0 likesBro 5 is not smaller than 4 and 3i can't be comapred with 4 smh
1 like@Prateek Bhaisora relax man, I knew the answer lol. This was just a clever math trick. Lololol I see your point though.
0 likes@Prateek Bhaisora if you would like.... I can most definitely compare real numbers to complex numbers using lexicographical ordering since ever real number can be written as #+i(0). However you can not not compare complex numbers because there is not total ordering on the complex numbers.
0 likesLets confuse americans
3 likesnice
0 likesMan🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@Jollys Heldone why you gotta bring factorials into it :p
0 likesThis question is asking of two smaller square numbers. < and > are undefined for complex numbers, 3*i is not necessarily less than or greater than 16
1 likePi is irrational dude
0 likesIf i is inside the box, wouldn't it also get squared?
0 likesDon't take me wrong, I've not touched maths since many years.
Zero is not a square number. It is clearly very round.
5 likesOO iota in the house let's make it a little more shout and go around a pout
0 likes@BiggieBigs chill tf out bro
0 likes@Jollys Heldone 3 square plus 4 square is 25
0 likesCheese Cake you can't find the square root of negative numbers
0 likes@ceiling light Yes I know! what's your point?
0 likesOkay so, the audience most likely thought it was 16 because 4^2 is 16 and it is also the SUM of to other squares, they most likely thought that 8 + 8 is 16 and 8 is the square root of 64 so that's, what the audience thought
0 likes@Azorath142 WTF are you talking about? the question is obvious! it can not be mistaken, why are we still discussing this?
0 likes@Jollys Heldone I don't really know I made that comment at like 2:00 am and I was really tired
0 likes@Azorath142 No Worries most people that have posted on this have been either intoxicated, retarded, or deluded. At least you have the ability and sense to recognise your errors, many don't.
0 likes*clearly. Not clearing.
0 likesobviously.
0 likesimaginary numbers are not comparable :)
1 likeThis is so cursed
0 likesI answered it even without opening the video 😂
0 likeslooks like not much are familiar with the factorial thing 😂
0 likes@homeboi808 What but "what number has a square root that is also a square number" is a completely different question. Where would the word "sum" come in at all then?
1 like@a.a I teach remedial math to seniors in HS, people always add stuff not in the question.
1 like😂 You funny man! You made me laugh.
0 likes@homeboi808 Huh. I could see that for a few, but fully 50% of people though? More people than any other group, all independently interpreted the same, completely different question, which is immediately wrong in at least two different ways? I'm finding that hard to believe, but will defer to your expertise. That's pretty amazing if that's true.
0 likes@Jollys Heldone it's the SQR of -1. i^2 = -1.
0 likesLMFAOOOO
0 likesYa but the question said 2 smaller so that's where they went wrong
1 likeThey didn't mention real numbers. Seems fair.
0 likesWhat is that 3i again ?when it is about SR
0 likesI thought the question was, "which of these square numbers that also happens to be the sum of two smaller numbers". 4²=16, 8+8=16.... 🙍
0 likesHahahahahahhaahh! bro you are next level
0 likesBut the question was for whole numbers and not for imaginary numbers ......... 😒😐😑Lol 🤣
0 likesEven though you have so many likes 😀
Gauss agrees
0 likesVery mysterious question ,high tinking question .
0 likesNot to ruin your joke by being a smartass but the sum has to be from two numbers smaller than the sum and 5^2 is too high
0 likesCheese Cake no one asked
0 likesbut both no should less than square root of resulting no
0 likesThat answer’s a bit too… complex.
2 likesI’ll be here all night, folks
but he dont know the simple maths , do you think he can go for complex numbers
0 likesSurprising, that the audience knew that 5^2 plus (3i)^2 works but didn't know the definition of square and the absence of the smaller/larger property in C.
3 likesObviously the correct answer should have been d) 49 as both 4 and 9 are smaller squares.
You are correct....
0 likesOuestion should be -:
Which of these square numbers also happens to be sum of 2 smaller square number ( numbers can be imaginary or real number )
@Josh Greenberg An easier way to rule out this possibility is noting that the question says "square numbers", which are by definition integers. Therefore, we aren't talking about imaginary numbers.
1 likeMy thoughts exactly.
0 likesRoger Wang, well, yeah technically youre not wrong here ( if we take in calcul sqrt of -1)
0 likes@t45 dun The calculation isn't wrong, but 3i is not an integer, so it is ruled out by the question.
0 likes@Mo Atef yeah, its not an integer
0 likesC is not a metric space, therefore 5 > 3i means nothing
2 likes🤣😂🤣
0 likesIndeed. Not specifying domain of numbers here is such a newbie mistake.
2 likes@Ray Rowley problem here is that such a relationship doesn't exist between complex numbers and real numbers.
0 likes@Kevin Bush but for completely different reasons.
0 likes@jp fay why would they?
1 likeThe relationship smaller doesn't exist between imaginary and real numbers. Also. 5^2 is not smaller then 4^2 which is in violation of the question.
@RodelIturalde That was my point.
0 likesReally, this just points out how unclear the question was lol
0 likes3²+4²=25
1 like@Lokesh PATEL simple logic bhai ase tu 1²+0²=1 bhai nahi Pythagoras triplet 3²+4²=5
0 likes@Jollys Heldone i is sqrt of -1
0 likesNo, imaginary numbers cant be compared as there is no small or big imaginary number so 3 iota cannot be utilised.
0 likesBe Real, come out of your imagination! 😂
0 likesCheese Cake nice
0 likesBetter answer, they perhaps needed to mention complex or real numbers.
0 likes@Jollys Heldone It's √-1
0 likes@Ravi Tiwari he has so many likes because of how he thought. No one cares for whole numbers. Just that he got the answer. 😂😂😂
0 likesYeah, but 3i is not a smaller number😪
0 likesCheese Cake thanks for explaining the obvious idiot
0 likesBut 3<5
0 likesIsn't any number with i, an imaginary number?
0 likes3i is not less than 5 cz it aint a real number dumbass
0 likes@English Life 3i is not greater than 5 either. In the complex realm, “greater” and “lesser” have no practical meaning.
0 likeswhat about 6^2+0^2= 36 LOL
0 likes@Ronit Aich they did say the number less than the square number
2 likesFor example, let's take this question 5²=25 we'll have to take 2 numbers less than 5 i.e for this it's 3²(=9)+4²(=16)
@homeboi808 yeah but the question like clearly says "sum" of smaller square numbers.
0 likesIt's okay if they're bad at math, can't be bad at both math and English.
too much knowledge is a curse hahahahahaha
0 likes@Deep Throught Ha, you don’t know my students (and my area if fairly good, I can just imagine inner city public schools).
1 like@Mercedes I know that is what I am saying. The fact that he is comparing complex numbers with real numbers is just doesn't make any sense. Imagine comparing length and weight at the same time by saying George length is greater than his weight. That is what this person did.
0 likesCan't believe so much debate over what the audience did wrong. All they did was misread the word "sum" as "product" in the original question. Everything else in the question, they read correctly, just that one word. They may have read "sum" but their brains processed it to "product" - so did mine at first, gravitating me to 16, but then gave it a few more seconds thought and realized my error.
0 likes@sirmolio How can so many people misread or misinterpret “sum” as “product”. Makes no sense!
2 likesThey were just too good at maths
0 likes3i is not a number
0 likesApparently they missed the "smaller square numbers" part, as 5 > 4 :P
0 likesNice try, but the question was about the sum of two SMALLER square numbers! 25 is not smaller than 16!
0 likes@Jollys Heldone i is sqrt(-1)
0 likesBut there is nothing like smaller or bigger for complex number.. 😉
0 likes@Jollys Heldone why are you working with factorials
0 likesIota is complex number dude.
0 likesCombination of Integer and Imaginary numbers are not allowed because she says "SMALLER", There is not "Bigger than" or "Smaller than" relations among complex numbers.
0 likes@Mercedes They misread "sum" as "product" or "square" - 1) Can and do you even see how misreading this single word leads to the answer 16? Read the question, substitute that word, and process. You see you get 16. If you do not see this, there is no point to discussing further. If so, proceed to point 2. 2) Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the most likely. As soon as the audience reads squares, they start thinking squares/multipliers. Addition never enters their mind despite reading "sum" - starts thinking in terms of squares and products, hence the misreading in their heads - at no time did any addition computation enter their minds. The argument is over. The task is not refuting what I say, but to contemplate how and why such a word "sum" was miscronstrued. My explanation is the most plausible and correct and should indeed be obvious now that I've enlightened you.
0 likes@sirmolio The simplest explanation is that the audience is dumb. I think you are being a bit generous by claiming that they all collectively misconstrued “sum”.
0 likesJust take the Pythagoras triplets lol
0 likes@Mercedes More like laziest explanation, not simplest. Dumb audience would mean random guessing and answers of equal distribution with no bias towards any one answer.
0 likesYaH I miss understood the question at first; it's very deceptive
0 likes@Josh Greenberg I was thinking this as well, but notice that we have to compare the squares, not the bases (that is, we compare (3i)^2=-9 with 4^2=16, not 3i with 4. However, the example fails anyways because 25 is not smaller than 16.
0 likesI love you ahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha
0 likes@Ray Rowley Nope complex numbers are not well ordered
0 likesCheese Cake Ah, almost. 25 is not smaller than 16, but it is required to be by the question.
0 likesJollys Heldone it‘s very hard to get to 25! by addition. It‘s about 15 septillion
2 likesNice one ..imaginary numbers very creative .,.you should get 15000 dollars for creativity
0 likesCan you really define 3i (or any multiple of i) as "smaller" than 16? It's not even on the same number graph, so it's relative position to 16 is undefined. And, of course 5^2 is bigger than 16.
0 likesThe word "smaller" is how they escaped scrutiny, because there are loads of definitions of two squares to add up to all four choices.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likesNo, silly, they were thinking of (3.2)^2 + (2.4)^2 = 16. No need to involve imaginary numbers when merely non-integers will do.
5 likesBut 3i is not SMALLER than 5
0 likesMust of have
0 likes@BiggieBigs Of course 0 is a square number. It is the literal vertex for the y=x² parabola because if we take the derivative of y we get y' which is equal to 2x.
0 likesWe then need to find when 2x=0 to get our co-ordinates. 2x=0 goes to x=0/2
goes to x=0.
0 is the only sol thus making it the input value for our y'.
0,2(0) goes to 0,0
0,0 is our vertex for y=x². 0 is a square.
@redscorpion 7810 No it is the sqrt(-1) or the imaginary unit.
0 likesi²=-1
@SAMEET PATIL Well yes but actually no.
0 likesAre you for real?
0 likesWow you figured out this for good comment😂, I appreciate your efforts.
0 likes😂😂😂
0 likesWhat
0 likesThe question was to use 2 smaller square numbers to add up to one of the 4 options. Obviously with 4² as the first option, 1²,2²,3² can't add up to 4² in any order. There's the special triangles that are commonly used in Pythagoras' Theorem which are 3²+4²=5², 5²+12²=13²
0 likesU can't say 3i smaller than 4
0 likes@Картофель and 5 is not smaller than 4
0 likeslol thats complex no...... imagonary no.
0 likesReal genius 🤣🤣
0 likeswhat
0 likes@spwashh Its complex numbers
0 likesi = √(-1)
Complex numbers damn!!
0 likesHow does compare 3i and 25 , the question said two "SMALLER" numbers
0 likesYeah, but unfortanutly 25>16
0 likesLol
0 likes@Vikram Tete because they asked for the sum of two smaller squared numbers, 4^2 isnt smaller than 4^2
0 likesYou are amazing
0 likesYeah clearly, because that's the level society is on now.
0 likes@Vikram Tete This actually strikes me, although I don’t believe that this could be a case because 16 = 4^2 + 0^2 but 16 is not greater than 4^2, and question asked for smaller square numbers
0 likesAre you from India
0 likesTrue
0 likes@Aston Smith zero IS a square number. the question specifically states "SMALLER two square numbers", that is all you had to say.
0 likes@a.a most of them guessed because they don't know obviously, 16 looks like an answer due to the fact that its square root is a square number and it satisfies the problem definition. most people know that 2^2 = 4 and might think 16 is indeed a likely answer, its more of a hunch rather than interpretation.
0 likes@Randheer Singh Thakur sarcasm you don't understand dude.
0 likes@Vikram Tete 4² is not smaller than 16, it is 16.
0 likesyour wrong with this example tho
0 likesIn math, a square number is specifically defines as:Product of some integer with itself (src: wikipedia)
3i ain't an integer.Hence (3i)^2 is not a square number
They were thinking no such thing.
0 likesLol 😂 complex ghusa diya
0 likes@homeboi808 I understood it the same way, but English is not my first or even second language.
0 likes5^2 is not smaller than 16!
0 likeswell 25 > 16 so their logic is even more scuffed
0 likesunless they thought '+' meant *subtraction*? :D
to be fair, this one is more of comprehension problem rather than math problem
1 likeperfect distribution, from smallest and first number to larges/last. They just picked the first they knew
1 like😂why don't we get this level questions in exams😂
0 likesMe, finally glad that learning the 3,4,5 right triangle (the Pythagorean Theorem triangle) was useful after all:
0 likesBaby blue song plays in background as Ryan loses hope in humanity🤣🤣🤣
0 likesShe tried so hard to hint to him that he was wrong. Pointing out the AOL poll wasn't "as good", reminding him he has other lifelines. Then she rambles a bit, I guess because she realizes it's obvious. It was kind of her
4575 likesReplies (29)
She really threw him a huge line there and he just didn’t pick up on it.
288 likesIt is the unwritten law of this gameshow to make you second guess yourself.
262 likesI'll admit this question threw me off as well. I read it as "the sum of two of the same smaller square numbers" which would be impossible with any of the answers rather than two different smaller square numbers combined. Evidently threw both the audience and the AOL audience off as well.
67 likesIt's a quirk of the bias of the mind, I'd argue. Square roots inevitably require the self-same number, but the question itself allows two that are not the same.
@VesperAegis News & Games but it wouldn't work even under such an interpretation. Now, if we had both 8 and 25 as possible answers, that'd be funny.
14 likesHe believed in audience too much
1 like@Анатолий Бронштейн Of course it wouldn't work, that's the problem. Yet most of us assume that game shows don't make errors, and that it is instead our own dysfunction that is not seeing the proper answer rather than reading the question incorrectly entirely as a premise. These aren't unreasonable assumptions, frankly.
4 likes@VesperAegis News & Games they are unreasonable if we are talking about assumptions. You should never assume it is someone else who is wrong and not you. You start with an assumption that the task formulation is correct, and check it for inconsistencies. Only if all checks fail can you conclude that it is indeed incorrect.
20 likesAnyway, I don't see how this is relevant. The question was correctly worded, and the answer was correct as well.
Yeah...kind of her
0 likesWhere does she point out that the AOL poll wasn’t “as good”? She just points out that they both agree that the number isn’t great, which is entirely different.
3 likes@Анатолий Бронштейн And yet, all of us do it - even you, whether you realize it or not. The mind is built from the ground up for biases based on emulation of widest and most redundant preset scenarios, and this even applies to our visual field. The brain corrects its simulation only when it sees an error in its preset, not before. The great thing about the logical mind is that we CAN independently confirm formulations and assumptions, but that doesn't mean bias does not exist and can be correctly every time. We do not live in that ideal world, hence my point about the question appealing to the mind's biases. Checking for inconsistencies to the point of redundancy when the grand majority of scenarios indicate that the question will be formulated correctly without an appeal to biases of the mind or trickery is most of the time absurdity. One can waste valuable time and mental resources checking independently, or proceed with some amount of reasonable interpretation and assumption in tow - skipping resource-intensive steps of independent verification for every idiosyncratic element can be quite helpful in most scenarios. Whether it is correctly worded or not is utterly irrelevant.
2 likes@VesperAegis News & Games and here's where you are wrong, because nobody's arguing for doubting every step of the way through your everyday life. In fact, your biases outside of the scope of any particular research are irrelevant to the research itself; on the other hand while doing research, certain procedures must be observed lest the research lost all its value. My point was that you absolutely must question yourself when you find yourself confused. If something doesn't make sense to you, take a step back and ask yourself what you are missing.
0 likes@Анатолий Бронштейн The issue, of course, is that questioning yourself does not preclude that the bias should be taken completely out of consideration, especially when it could influence how you ultimately arrive at an evidence-based conclusion and the steps required to get to that point. Indeed, if you find yourself confused, and especially if you are limited on time and scope in what you can do, you should be as efficient as possible while not necessarily abdicating your own independent conclusions. In this particular case, it makes reasonable sense to assume that the game show's designers did not intend to deceive, especially with a question towards the middling field no doubt more carefully crafted than others, and to work based off of the assumption that there may be an answer under that premise you have not delved into closely enough yet. Does that mean you shouldn't independently make conclusions? No. But we have the benefit of hindsight here and the fact that in this particular case, the assumption did not pay off - in other circumstances, it most definitely would have saved both time and effort. And very much to the contrary - biases outside the scope of research most certainly can lead you to valid conclusions as a proxy, even if they are purely deductive or inductive based on past experience in causal chains of events in other fields of inquiry.
1 likeShe is not kind all the hosts does that maybe they are instructed to
0 likesYes but in such cases the player doesn't know if the presenter want to help you or trick you.
1 like@Giorgos Maragkopoulos I've never seen the host attempt to trick a contestant in this game
2 likesshe was the best host...
2 likesthey do that pretty much every question no matter if you're right or wrong
0 likesYou never trust maths solutions to bunch of random people
2 likes@Анатолий Бронштейн Well, 8 isn't actually a square number, it is a cube number. That means it's not really a valid answer anyway. But I can definitely see how it would throw so many people off :D
1 like@CZghost it's in the context, buddy. 8 was meant to be the answer under the alternative interpretation the guy I was talking to suggested, and 25 was meant to be the right answer. 8 = 2² + 2². Obviously, we have to loosen the requirement of 8 being a square itself, because there's no such n that both n = m² and n = p² + p² with whole n, m and p.
0 likes0^2 +4^2=16
1 like1
0 likesBecause he’s a chadlite
0 likes@SMT and Earthbound Suck what does that mean lol
0 likesAbsolute dogshit interpretation, nowhere does it restrict you to the same number, under any interpretation of math or the english language, wtf?
0 likes@Анатолий Бронштейн amen , wise words
0 likes@VesperAegis News & Games You just have poor reading and listening comprehension skills then.
0 likes@VesperAegis News & Games I read it as who was the first president. but ot clearly doesn't fuckong say that so im stupid and should shut the fuck up. same goes for others
0 likesShe even tried to hint, "Can you figure it out based on what you're seeing here" -- i.e. the second choice (25) is the first choice (16), plus nine. The hint to the answer was right there in front of him.
0 likesHis face was priceless. He was betrayed lol.
0 likesit took me some time, but I realized it was 25 because it’s the sum of 16 and 9, that are also square numbers
0 likesSeems like he didn't remember his Pythagorean triplets
1 likeEis que você termina o e.m. e não sabe o teorema de pitágoras kkk
0 likesThe host was too kind. Hosts in my country confuse people even when they gave the right answer
0 likesThe guy in the hot seat gets a pass for this. When you're under that amount of stress, all cognitive processes go out the window. Seriously, I can barely think straight when I'm called on in a class, let alone in front of millions of people.
5121 likesNow the audience, on the other hand...
Replies (53)
Oh yeah I feel the same way as well. My brain just turns off whenever I'm under pressure and it sucks lmao
197 likesA lot of people are functionally innumerate. They just don't need math in their day-to-day lives. Last year I watched someone ask their smartphone what time it would be in 20 hours. I told them they could just subtract 4 from the current time, and they looked at me like I was an idiot. Or, I suggested, you could add 8 and swap the AM/PM. "That doesn't even make any sense," they said.
309 likesThe next day, I saw a different coworker had done the same task without asking their phone. They had actually added 68 hours instead of 20. No idea how they got that figure.
I wish they had just used their phone :(
edeltwice lmao
6 likes@edeltwice bruh moment
19 likesbruh, stop complaining, ur just dumb
7 likes@teapotmonkey Shows how immature you are. People like you don't claim anxiety to be true. I myself have social anxiety, and despite liking math, when under a lot of anxiety and stress, my cognitive functions start to decrease and hence the answer is not correct. I'm a introvert and social anxiety affects me a lot.
123 likesNo fucking way lol, this is way too easy to get wrong.
12 likesBruh but this is a 2nd grade math question
10 likesthe question was weirldy put as well so that also kinda excuses him
10 likes@dujoboi mate its for 15gs. Peoples bust their asses off for a month to earn something like that.
5 likes@Eezlum Mockelchev Yeah, peoples that make 180 grand a year. It takes most peoples a lot longer than a month to make that much, mate.
7 likesI’ve probably got that much in my couch cushions, of course, but I’m not most peoples. I tip that much when I eat at a cheap restaurant, if the service is bad, but I’m unbelievably rich.
@Chris Webster i didn't say anything slightly offensive mate. Why so serious?
2 likes@dujoboi how tho
0 likesI do feel like you'd soon settle in to a slightly less uncomfortable state where you're capable of thought, but just second-guess all your immediate thoughts.
5 likesI'm gonna be real, this doesn't even seem like an easy question. Yeah, with a bit of time anyone can just find the answer, or simply have the common 3-4-5 right triangle already in mind, but I wouldn't really expect more than 75% of people to get this right in this scenario. Too much pressure and too little time.
16 likes@britheramer Ahh yes, having to answer a question for $15,000 is just a normal life circumstance, and this only involves basic mathematical principles
5 likes@edeltwice This timeline is fucked
1 like@edeltwice oooh, innumerate, I learned a new, useful word today. Usually I just say math is evil when I tell people I can't do it.
7 likesBruh I'm 30 yrs old. And that is like asking a 10 year old what's 1+1 is. Literally the easiest question anybody could have gotten.
5 likesSome people are just shit at math
2 likesIf you can't handle the anxiety then how about you PRACTICE beforehand(believe it or not, that actually works)
1.000.000$ should be worth it
I see some commenters not familiar with how anxiety works. That's okay, just please don't assume that you know how it must feel at the moment.
9 likesFor me, it feels like all associative and pattern-matching functions (something very important for math questions!) just stop working. I wouldn't in a million years make a connection to 3-4-5. Thankfully, the math here is basic, and I would certainly remember what square numbers are and how addition works, so I would just start mindlessly iterating through calculations 49-4, 49-36, 49-16, etc. I think I would arrive at a correct answer eventually, it would just take me a minute or two.
@Arav Sri Agarwal It is absolutely not. This is more like a high school freshman math question. What kind of school did you go to where they were doing square roots in Second Grade?
9 likes@Humza it is easy, but the question is phrased weirdly in a way many could understandably be confused by
5 likes@Astrielle the problem isnt the contestant but the audience who were basically under no pressure
6 likes@Blake McNamara high school freshman? People learn squares and square roots in 3rd or 4th grade now.
1 like@Blake McNamara this shit is easy lol. As long as you understand the definition of a squared number, which should be anyone above the age of 11 . Then you should be able to get this question right, even if it takes you a minute.
2 likes@HyperNoVa496 - is this time limited though? because it can be simple but then takes time to brute force through all the options and check them each.
2 likes@edeltwice They added 2 days and then their 20 hours so technically day-irrelevant they would've been fine.
1 like@Kalel Castro no, there was no time limit
1 likeHow can someone get a pass for being on the hot seat and not able to solve elementary maths
0 likes@The Caynuck The question is very clear. Sum of two smaller square numbers. There's no confusion at all.
5 likesEspecially when the audience gave the wrong answer
1 like@Blake McNamara probably a school in a country outside of the United States. I'm sure it has changed in the last 20 or so years, but back in 1999, 7th graders in the US were still doing multiplication tables while Bulgarian 7th graders were learning algebra. So, depending on the school system, I can easily see this being 2nd grade stuff
2 likes@edeltwice One of my late uncles once called me at 4 am in Tokyo from New York. I jumped up out of bed, answered the phone, heard his voice, and shouted, "Did someone die?" He said that everything was fine. Why did I think someone had died, he wondered. I told him it was 4am. Why would he call at 4am unless someone had died? To which he replied, "Oh, we're sorry. We couldn't remember if Tokyo was around 12 or 24 hours ahead of NY." (Depending on whether it's DST in the USA, it's 13 or 14.) I had to remind him that if it were 24 hours, Tokyo and NY would have to be in the same time zone, like Boston and NY. He didn't really get it. I don't think he understood the time zone system and how to use it. He was trying to learn a list of facts: London is so and so many hours ahead. Bombay (what it was called then) is so and so many. Tokyo is so and so many. Individual facts, instead of patterns or systems. The whole reason that standard time zones were introduced is that no one could keep track of all the different times, as trains went from town to town, this one two minutes ahead of the previous one, the next one four minutes ahead of this one. Perhaps this allegiance to rote memorization (when most of what you memorize is forgotten) instead of the famous "learn how to think" part of education is the real problem.
1 likeOn the other hand, here in Japan, I have given up asking students to debate the value of keeping standard time all year or switching to DST in the summer. Inevitably, I get students who insist, "You can't change time. It's part of nature."
I have also had relatives who were baffled as to the Celsius temperature system. How do you know if it is warm or cold when it's 20 degrees C.? I answered, "How do you know if it's warm or cold when it's 20 degrees F.?"
"Well, it's really cold."
"Yes, but how do you know that?"
"Because 20 degrees is cold!"
"Yes, but how did you find that out? You went outside when you were a little kid and it was 20 degrees and your mother made sure you were bundled up.
"I don't want to put on my wool jacket!"
"You have to. It's only 20 degrees outside."
Even so, the cold stung the skin on the part of your face that wasn't covered. That's how you learned that 20 degrees is really cold."
"But don't you have to calculate something? Isn't that difficult?"
"You can, but why bother when the easiest thing is to check the temperature on the thermometer or the news, 20 degrees C., open the front door and feel what 20 degrees C. feels like. Now without any calculation, you have learned what 20 degrees C. feels like, not too warm and not too cold. Why would you want to calculate it in Fahrenheit degrees?"
Puzzled look on their faces, like, "Why wouldn't you?" as if everything had to be translated back into something they have long been familiar with in order to be valid.
If that's the case, why didn't he fail on the questions he already answered? If he was nervous, it was because it was a subject he was not good at and he knew it. It's not like he walked in off the street. The contestant coordinator knew that he had the kind of personality they wanted. He just got flummoxed by math, like I would have been flummoxed by a Bible question or one about the Wild West or rap music.
0 likesAudience just reminds me that no matter what I do, I can at least be slightly above average
2 likes@Ayush Mishra I think they made it look like he had to answer it immediately. I’d take a minute to recall my maths lessons and then the question cause I’m on vacation. Then spend another minute trying out all the combinations. Simple if you get the question but takes a lot of time to calculate each option.
0 likes@Ayush Mishra heard someone say it should be ‘square integers’ instead of numbers. or a perfect square.
0 likes@Kalel Castro tbh I answered this in less than 7 seconds but I understand what you are saying. It's a 15 grand question, he should have taken his time no matter what
2 likes@Kalel Castro this is a common misconception. People should take a moment to think instead of jumping on conclusion or atleast they can google it.
2 likesSquare number is a number of the form n*n where n is an integer and it's same as a perfect square.
@DodgeThatAttack lol true
0 likes@Astrielle Stop putting words in his mouth lmao
0 likesI'm not sure he knows what a square number is. When the question was read, he said "square numbers..." like he was trying to remember what that is.
0 likesThat's exactly what this boi would say...
0 likes@edeltwice Omg, that's awesome! I'm gonna use that method now.
0 likesBruh the question was extremely unclear. That’s why people got it wrong. They aren’t stupid.
0 likes@Arav Sri Agarwal My school sure must've sucked 20ish years ago. This was considered a 6th grade question. Lousy USA schools go figure the usual if anything.
0 likes@Youkei Sesshomaru How could it have been stated more clearly?
0 likesDude ...u can do it in your head...come ON
0 likes@Astrielle Yep. I'm a high school teacher, and a huge part of my job is reducing the stress level of my students so I can get an accurate idea of what they know, rather than whatever they can push through the fog of terror they feel when they take a test or speak in front of a class.
0 likes@edeltwice People don't like to think either because they're impatient, lazy, or in a hurry.
0 likesIf those people you ask had just given a little time to think about what you said they could've figured it out. For example, it took me a couple minutes to understand adding 8 hours then switching AM/PM. I thought why switch the AM/PM and then i realized it represented 12 hours going by. 12 + 8 = 20 hours
@Verity58 Finally, someone smart. Good job for not calling him an 'idiot' for not figuring out the answer.
0 likes@Astrielle no one gives a shit no one Pitys you
0 likesi love how the audience just immediately start clapping
2 likeslike they wanted him to lose
edit: This is the ultimate villain origin story
I just got it by looking at the thumbnail, I never thought the 3-4-5 rule from the Pythagorean Theorem would prove useful.
3 likesImagine if he was the kid in classs who'd say why so i need this in life
0 likesI was about to say 16 then I thought “wait SQUARE NUMBERS, not numbers that lead to squares” then just remembered the high school equation, 3^2+4^2=5^2
2 likes"Who wants to be a mathematician" 😭
3 likesI’m actually used to it at school. I come across 3² + 4² = 5² quite often, especially if I first saw it utilized on the Pythagorean triple. Everyone uses those numbers when talking about the Pythagorean Theorem.
3171 likesHowever, there were other times where those numbers show up. I’ve seen them while calculating the distance between two points on a coordinate plane using the distance-formula, and graphing quadratics like 2x² -2x +1.
Replies (73)
It’s worth noting that the distance formula is just the Pythagorean theorem applied to the coordinate plane, so it makes sense for 3-4-5 to show up in it as well.
134 likesDid anyone need to know this
77 likesCum
23 likesI thought they were asking for which two numbers that make a squared number, also happen to be squared numbers themselves. So the answer would be A: 16–> 4*4, 4 is a squared number. I read the question wrong.
78 likes@Ghana Ria i also read it like that. The question wasn't very clearly phrased.
52 likes@Catf1shed
6 likes, very clever!
what's more impressive here is how you put exponents in a YT comment! how did you do it?
20 likes@Aryahmmr you just hold the alt gr key and then press the number like ² in this comment.
18 likesI understand nothing you just said
6 likesYes! Pythagorean theorem! That's also why I knew it
7 likesYeah it's common to use 3²+4²=5² but it is also common to use 5²+12²=13²
15 likes@Shahbaz that’s 2^3. 2^2 is 4.
0 likesYup classic 3x4x5 triangle
6 likes@Aryahmmr on pc, use alt.
1 likeOn Android, long press the number.
I am also used to reading this exact question word by word in Pythagorean triplets.
0 likesThis comment is for people that took advanced math courses in school
1 like@Big Boy we don't have anything like that in India. just maths.
10 likes@Shreeshanth Kadam haha nice pythagorean is considered advanced math over here yet we have some of the best engineers in the world makes sense lol
5 likes@Waseem Nah, but like the people above, they jizz at knowing things that have no place in this world, lol.
0 likesI think problem is the writing of the question. At first I didn't understand it well. Until second reading the I could guess right answer. Yet I didn't remember about Pythagoras at all.
0 likesThis was an easy question for me. If you think about it you can actually figure out the answer
1 like@Waseem The guy in the video sure did
1 likeGhana ria: that would be the product not the sum.
3 likesExactly! Pythagorean formula, 25 final answer
0 likesThey're easy numbers that get put in questions in middle school/early high school math, but an adult might not remember perfect right triangles after all that time.
2 likes@BlazoRaptor it was clear. It asks about the sum, not product.
13 likesTriplets
0 likesanother common one is 5 12 13
1 like@Ghana Ria if that was the case, the question would have said "product" and not "sum". Though i think "product" would have confused this guy even more
5 likes@Big Boy and all those engineers know the pythagorean triple
1 like@BlazoRaptor it said of 2 smaller square numbers
0 likes@Waseem
0 likesJust the STEM people
Did you see the Pythagorean triple at school in the US?
2 likesyoure so smart lol
1 likePeople actually knew about this triple without knowing about the pythagorean theorem. Plenty of engineers used that triple instead of the formula to measure out their buildings.
1 like@aryaj singh I thought 5,12,13 is exactly the next Pythagorean triple after 3,4,5?
1 like@Taxtro example?
1 likeYou do realise that the distance formula is just pythagoras right? Seeing the triple show up when calculating the distance between two points isn't "Other times where those numbers show up", it's the excact same.
3 likes@LuskyMJ
1 likeOf course I know that.
It’s just that they aren’t usually taught together, so I technically I see them at different times.
@Ardyneus I don't know who taught you bet I've never heard someone not talk about pythagoras when talking about the distance formula.
1 like@LuskyMJ
0 likesI meant that I learned the Pythagorean theorem first, then distance formula later.
@BlazoRaptor it said sum though
2 likes@Ghana Ria it said sum though
2 likesIt comes up often in quadratic equations as well.
1 likeyeah, like 3 4 5 give you a perfect square (meaning right angle)
1 like@Waseem yes a lot of people did.
1 like@VectorAlphaAI No, not everyone is a nerd or sees the world how you do.
0 likes@Waseem Well they should so they stop being stupid.
1 likeYeah there’s no good reason that a crowd of adults should’ve missed that
1 like@Ghana Ria its clearly say sum....not product :/
1 likeFrom where I come from, we learn that at seventh grade in basic geometry if I remember correctly. Whats more interesting is that if we change the way we measure distance, than Pythagorean theorem may not hold, this can be discussed in general metric spaces where the definition of distance function can vary. For instance taking the surface of a sphere, and defining distance with great circles.
0 likes@Big Boy It's extremely basic, learned that in 6th grade in France
1 likeAnd it's also a textbook example of trivial Euclidean distance in 2D, it comes up frequently if you have a nice teacher that doesn't want to make your life miserable with square roots all around
On the non-expert scale, you could consider trigonometry to be halfway there and calculus to be fairly advanced. Still at the end of high school you should know all of that.
@Aryahmmr 3³ = 3² * 3¹
0 likesme when explained in my native language Vs me when explained in English
0 likes@BlazoRaptor Uhh it was clearly phrased. It clearly uses the word "sum" which only has one meaning in mathematics.
3 likes@Waseem just because you're jealous that you don't understand it doesn't mean other people won't appreciate the comment.
1 like@BlazoRaptor it was perfectly phrases because it asks for the sum.
2 likes@Cookie i wrote that 5 months ago man you're like the 5th person to tell me
0 likes@Cookie What?
0 likesIt’s literally just the 3 4 5 right triangle
2 likesSorry can't understand anything
0 likesShows up pretty often in introductory special relativity as well. (Calculating beta factors under the Lorentz expression, the slopes in a space-time worldline). But they appeared just about anywhere yeah, just a matter of actually being familiar with those.
0 likesno way you’ve seen a 3 4 5 triangle 🤯🤯🤯🤯
1 like@Avni Aggarwal could you expand a bit on this. I understand if you do apply some amount of critical thinking to this problem you have a good chance at coming up with the right answer, however what thought approach would be necessary here and how much effort should be allocated to determining a solution?
0 likes@Giant Axe it's basic question tbh there shouldn't be much thinking involved
0 likesWhy
0 likes@Waseem everyone needed to know this
0 likes@Yujiro Hanma "A sum of smaller squares" : 2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 = 16 (4^2), just as much as 3^2 + 4^2 = 25 (5^2).
0 likesThey simply added "two square numbers", to make it more clear which one was correct.
@Ghana Ria you just don’t know what sum means
0 likes@Big Boy If you're talking about the United States, it makes sense, because many of the top engineers are immigrants. Also, as an American, advanced students here learn it in 8th grade while average students learn it in 9th grade. I see nothing advanced here.
0 likes@ThreeMilks yup
0 likesWow .. okay
1 likeTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
1 likea^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
If I was in the audience I would answer wrong on purpose, and then burst out in laughter when he loses.
2 likesI must admit, I don't remember ever coming across the expression 'square number'.
0 likesLooking at the question, I figured out what it means.
However, if I was just asked 'What is a square number', I wouldn't have known for sure.
Replies (1)
Closest I could come up with is 11 which is at least a parallelogram (in sans serif)
0 likesAhh math don't go so well with certain ppl, but damn the audience is definitely drinking something that I want lmaooooooo
0 likesThis should've been the million dollar question.
0 likesThat's not just math, it's also basic carpentry.
2 likesEnglish is not my mother language but I'm even understand it bro... I'm also a machanical engineering student lol
0 likesI knew exactly what the audience was thinking, they immediately thought that 16 is the product of two squares (4x4), and forgot that the question asked for the sum. I, and probably a lot of the audience, initially thought that the squares had to be the same number, i.e. 4 and 4, forgetting that 3^2+4^2=5^2, which is commonly used to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem.
3100 likesReplies (131)
they weren’t thinking, they are just stupid as hell
0 likesBut all the answers were squares...
109 likesaDg 2k18 I agree it's not the best worded question, but the keyword is sum, not product. All squares are products by definition. Every answer was a square, so picking 16 just because it's 4x4 versus 5x5, 6x6, or 7x7 is just the audience being lazy. 'Sum' tells you it is a higher number that was two squares added together. 'Product' is multiplication.
172 likesaDg 2k18 i mean it could have been 4²+0² = 16
162 likes@cotolengo sbilenco i thought about 0^2 at first but then its obvious that makes every answer possible, therefore 0^2 can't be allowed
106 likes@Raptor302 I would say it's worded fine, it's just not everyone knows what product and sum means...
35 likesBut in fairness, everyone has done sums, and they know it means addition.
And it's not like it's a unfair question, it could be an art or politics questions with a term in that people don't know either.
Your theory is probably right though about 4 times 4 and the wrong use of sum.
@cotolengo sbilenco 0 isn't a square number, although I guess on occasion you'll find a book that says it is, like how some books say 1 is a prime number.
29 likes@demon in denim The fact that 0 isn't a square number should deter you from using it, I guess if you didn't know then your logic shows 0 is a bad answer too.
8 likesuhh no the audience is just fucking stupid
0 likes@cotolengo sbilenco 16 isn't smaller than 16. Even if assuming 0 is a square number, it wouldn't work.
60 likesI’m about to learn trigonometry and related tidbits (like the Pythagorean theorem), so it makes complete sense that I didn’t know this :| some subjects I just passed magically but didn’t learn anything.
2 likes@C You don't know how to do basic arithmetic?
10 likesStop trying to sound smart
4 likesIt is not used to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem (I don't think so) but is a common triplet. There is actually a formula to generate such integer triplets
5 likes🤓
0 likesaDg 2k18 25 is not the product of two other square numbers added together, tf are you talking about?
0 likesI was thinking of 2^3 + 2^3 but im pretty drunk
5 likesaDg 2k18 "In mathematics, a product is the result of multiplication [...]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28mathematics%29?wprov=sfla1)
0 likes16 • 9 (the product) ≠ 25, but 16 + 9 (the sum) = 25.
In this case, the answer is 25 because it is the only one of the 4 answers that is the sum of two other square numbers [...] as was asked [...]
FTFY
aDg 2k18 Your ego will not lead you to success, kindly said, dear person. It'll narrow your view and disrupt your interactions with others, rendering you unable to enjoy open discussions in this vast world. I am not telling you to change, but warning you that this path will lead to suffering, only on your part.
1 like@cotolengo sbilenco Incorrect because the question clearly said "smaller".
3 likes@Colin Java It's not about that. The question is mathematical in nature, meaning someone needs mathematical skills beyond mere addition and multiplication. This is about the pythagorean theorem which certainly not everyone remembers.
0 likes@Abriel Robertsson no not really, you don't need to be aware of Pythagoras for this question.
9 likesReally all you need to know is what "sum" means, cause the question tells you the numbers given are square numbers, so that is a big clue to what square numbers are.
Once you've worked out what square numbers are, simply find two that sum to give one of the answers.
Those numbers are famous, though. It's the first and the easiest integer solution to the equation a² + b² = c². I think they call them "Diophantine triples" in math.
0 likesthe question was oddly-worded.
6 likesmore like the audience was as dumb as him, math-wise.
0 likesNate the problem with that logic for answering 16 is the same could be used for 36 here 2 squared is 4*4=16, but 2 squared and 3 squared multiplied 4x9=36. You’ve gotta breathe and look at the 4 options in a MC question and it becomes fairly obvious it’s 25 if you are ok at math, but if you’re pressuring yourself too much and not thinking then mistakes like this guy or the audiences can happen.
2 likes@Анатолий Бронштейн No, Diophantine triples are a lot more complicated, these are Pythagorean triples, eg (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (7,24,25)
2 likes@Colin Java Pythagorean triples are Diophantine triples for quadratic forms. But, you are right, Diophantine triples are a wider class, and my thinking was a bit off when I wrote that comment.
1 likeI knew that sum meant adding them together but I just refused to believe it.
0 likeswell, 36 is also a product of 2 smaller squares, 4 and 9
1 like@Colin Java everyone should know what products and sums are though?
1 like@up is down people forget stuff. But pretty hard to forget what sum means.
0 likesYeah, my gut instinct was 16, but the word sum kept sticking in my head. So I just counted it down.
1 like7x7=49, 6x6=36, 5x5=25, 4x4=16, 3x3=9, 2=2=4, and 1x1=1.
Can't be D, because 49-36=13 , but 13 isn't a cubed number, and none of the lower options add up to get high enough.
Can't be C, because 36-25 is 11, again not a cubed number, and again none of the lower options add up to get high enough.
Can't be A, because 16-9 is 7, rinse and repeat as above.
B, as the host said, 5x5=25, 4x4=16, and 3x3=9
16+9=25.
Up there on the stage though, all the pressure, and then both audience votes, hard to blame the guy.
I missunderstood the question and thought that they were asking for a number which is a square of one number, which is a square of another number (2^2=4 4^2=16)
0 likes@Colin Java If you see a book saying 1 is a prime number, you shoul throw it into trash. If you count 1 as a prime you ruin the fundamental theorem of arithmetic
2 likes@Finnyke In fact from what I remember, the integers (Z) are a unique factorisation domain. In a unique factorisation domain primes are the same as irreducibles.
3 likesBut 1 is a unit, so is not an irreducible, hence 1 is not prime.
Or what you said works too.
@Colin Java
0 likesEdit: Actually nevermind, upon further consideration I'm quite sure that your logic is legit
Hmm... I guess it is a way to put it; but I feel like there might be circular reasoning here. Wouldn't we need to know for certain that 1 is not a prime to claim that integers are UFD?
@Finnyke No, it's not circular...
0 likesSpecifically, a UFD is an integral domain (a nontrivial commutative ring in which the product of any two non-zero elements is non-zero) in which every non-zero non-unit element can be written as a product of prime elements (or irreducible elements), uniquely up to order and units.
I think the point is is that it says "non-unit", so it's not talking about 1 there.
I haven't done it for 20 years so don't remember a lot of it.
@Colin Java Yeah, you're right here
0 likesPeople out here giving the audience way more credit than they deserve lol they just picked A because it was the first one
4 likes@Raptor302 I wouldn't blame the audience, rather the system. It was literally more than 1 minute since the question was asked. We as viewers have the privilege of reading the question as many times as we like. They had to memorise a line not so small in size as well as the options. 1 minute is a long time for human short term memory and details start getting fuzzy. It's not as if they had come there with a sworn duty to help out the person there.
0 likesIf there is a lifeline, then atleast read out the question again to the audience with the options to remove as much of ambiguity as possible.
@cotolengo sbilenco "two smaller square numbers"
0 likesMaybe the audience was just trolling 😂😂
0 likes@cotolengo sbilenco damn true
0 likese
0 likesthe question is bad because it shouldve just been “which of these numbers” instead if “which if these squared numbers” theres no reason to add that the numbers are squared since theyre already shown.
6 likesbut if the point is the confuse the audience then id say it was well done
If it was product, 16 wouldn't even be the only correct answer. 36 is 2²×3².
1 likeOOOHHH ok that makes so much more since at first i was almost mad and i was like "noo!! there was more than one answer!!" i didn't catch the product. thanku😂
0 likesYou gave the audience too much credit. Most people can't do elementary math.
0 likesThat is a very stupid audience, indeed.
0 likesI thought 16 as
0 likes2² = 4 and 4²= 16 thus making sum too as 2+2 =4 and it's square ie 4²= 16
I thought 16 as
0 likes2² = 4 and 4²= 16 thus making sum too as 2+2 =4 and it's square ie 4²= 16
@Luchator no?
0 likes@cotolengo sbilenco But then you can write three other options that way. Only 25 is unique lol
0 likesPythagorean triplets
0 likesBut i answered it correctly but with different formula
0 likesSum of 2 smallest numbers
(1)² + (2)²
=1+4
=5
Then square of it
=(5)²
=25
D 4^2+5^2=7^?
0 likesEnglish is not my first language and initially I made the same mistake
0 likes@Raptor302 the point of the other user likely was that 4 = 2x2, hence, the product of 2 squares (2x2)x(2x2) (which doesn't answer the question to be clear)
0 likesbaudhayana theorem
0 likesTo me I thought they thought it was 16 cz 8+8 was 16 and 4 squared was 16
0 likesThe question itself is wrong bcoz , there's a difference btw perfect squares and square numbers
2 likes@Jeeva I mean sure if you really wanna split hairs about it, but typically, especially in a more colloquial context, “square number” implies a perfect square, because technically, every number is a square number, which would make specifying the term useless.
0 likes@Nate Wright every number is a square number that's why , they've should mentioned as 'perfect squares'
0 likesYeah me too
0 likesI think the majority of the audience just purely guessed and 16 looked the squariest to them
2 likes@cotolengo sbilenco tf
0 likes@C yeah bro how you not know
0 likes@Seal with big ash eyes how does getting the basics mean your smart? he dosnt sound smart, just regular
0 likes@Raptor302 4 is a square number 5 6 and 7 are not
0 likesSame. I believe it was an intended catch, and initially I chose 16. But than reread the question.
0 likesIt says two smaller square number.
2 likes0^2 +4^2=16 zero is also a number
0 likes0^2 +4^2=16 zero is also a number
0 likesThe question is all wrong since every answer is correct in at least two ways.
0 likesA) using rational numbers
=root of half answer^2 + same
B) using integers
0^2 + root of answer^2
Okay B does not work since squares have to be smaller. - but A still works I don't see question implying that the numbers have to be whole
@C it makes complete sense that you didnt know this? You seriously didnt learn roots and powers before trigonometry??
0 likes@cotolengo sbilenco 0 is neither a positive or negative number. 0 is an exception.
0 likessame for sure
0 likes@Jimmy Neutron it's actually used in construction a lot. It's sometimes called the 3-4-5 rule. It simplifies making sure your walls are square and not tilted. You measure two sides and the diagonal. You could use Pythagoras' theorem or simply use a factor of 3-4-5 for example in yards or meters.
1 like@Raptor302 no, only 4 is a square. 5, 6 and 7 are not
0 likesGood point. I thought the audience might’ve thought 8 + 8 but 8 is a cube of 2 and not hip enough to be a square.
1 like0 is a square anyway, but 16 is not less that 16. :)
0 likesI too thought in the same way i.e.
0 likes2*2+2*2
@StacksOvaflow I didn't say they were, I said all answers were squares (16,25,36,49).
0 likes@Raptor302 But yet again, people may have a tendency to missread these types of questions, me being ahead of my classmates in math, I've made this mistake countless of times
2 likesyou are giving these people WAY too much credit. They saw a math problem and they just randomly punched a button.
2 likes@Raptor302 the wording got me to thought it gotta be two same squares but i guess weed played a little role too in regards of my reading comprehension.
0 likesThe question strongly implies the numbers are different.
0 likesMore likely they were just biased toward the first answer.
0 likes@Raptor302 what they were saying is that 4 is also a square, 5 and all the others are not
0 likesI was wondering why I was able to pick 25 (= 4^2 + 3^2) quickly. As you pointed out, it's commonly used to illustrate Pythagoras' Theorem.
0 likesYeah i admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2
0 likes@Stephen Hosking ya I read all these comments on this thread before watching the clip & the explanation for the answer makes the question wording dumb. I admit to being bad at math my whole life currently working on it but. I was honestly thinking in terms of perfect squares for the second part which is why I thought A I know what sum means
1 likeOn a game show like this, typically that would be the level of complication for it. This was actually very convoluted. You had to work out all the sum of squares for all the numbers. So for 16, you go 4+12? no. 9+7? no. 16+0? Uh, yeah! LOL. I just realize 16 is correct.
1 like@cotolengo sbilenco that’s exactly what i thought lmfao
0 likes@NoGi Friday "16 looked the squariest to them". LOL! And, you are probably correct. I've separately responded that the clip begins with the host saying "This is for sixteen thousand dollars" so the word is also in their short term memory and sounding like a good, wholesome number. If I were "guessing" I would have avoided it as "too obvious" - maybe.
1 likeyeah 3,4,5 is a nice Pythagorean triplet to learn, the angles formed in the triangles are 37° and 53*
2 likesWell, it would be very foolish for anyone to think that is what the question was.
0 likes@Jimmy Neutron yes it's called Pythagorean triplets
0 likesYeah i did the same thing..
0 likes@cotolengo sbilenco 0^2 is a square, but it is not a square number, because that requires it to be a counting number. It's technical to be sure - I could imagine defining "square number" as a squared whole number, as well.
0 likesI was thinking 25, the suspense made me think it was a trick question. At the end I just realized most people are retarded.
0 likesActually, I doubt the audience was thinking anything. Most of them mindlessly just clicked something so that boring question would go away and some pop culture question would replace it. Thinking is a burden to most people.
0 likes37° and 53°
0 likesGotta love the Pythagorean triples
0 likescan't it also be 2^2+2^2=16
0 likes@Nimisha Rangarajan No. Because 2^2 is 4. So 4+4 is equal to 8, not 16. The question is asking for the sum of two squares, not the product. I totally get why you’d think that though and I think I made the same mistake at first too. Math is hard sometimes even when it sounds easy 😮💨
0 likes@Jivvi 2^2^2
0 likes@John Wilburn What is 4^2
0 likes@Kriegter 16
0 likes@cotolengo sbilenco It couldn't have been because it said smaller and 4 is not smaller than 4
0 likesI think they just thought 16 = 16 + 0, but not realising both the summands had to be a smaller square number
0 likes@Aspark Deity no 0 would make anything work
0 likes@John Wilburn are u okay? Of course 16 is a square number
0 likes@Kriegter I know, idk why so many people don’t know the answer / how they even ended up getting 16 then
1 like@Aspark Deity LOL, yes. I wasn’t thinking when I replied. I got this right the first time I watched it. People in this thread are getting tripped up over 16 being a square number and the PRODUCT of two squares vs. the SUM of two squares, which is what the question asked for.
0 likes@Aspark Deity they cut corners and thought "well 2x2 is 4 and 4x4 is 16"
0 likesto me, there was nothing to suggest that the smaller square"D" numbers could be different. The question should therefor be asked, what two radicals equal one of the options (something along these lines)
0 likes@george hatzimanolakisThe grammar of the question seems to suggest the two smaller squares are different, but of course, the math is all that matters. Multiple choice answers make the phrasing of the question much more forgivable.
0 likes@John Wilburn the grammar? Maybe syntax but maybe because I've never used the word 'square' when referring to an exponent of 2 ever, only using the word 'squared' which implies an action had happened as opposed to giving the number a qualifier like being a square number. Multiple choice doesn't help in math, I find, as a lot of answers revolve around something doing the wrong math.
0 likes@george hatzimanolakis Yes, grammar, and the multiple choice ruled out the possibility of anything after the decimal point. On must still understand the math, but there was a bit of free help there.
0 likes@John Wilburn you're still being ambiguous. Either answer properly or don't reply at all, ur just being annoying to get your socks off
0 likes@george hatzimanolakis I'm sorry that your grammar and composition lag behind your math.
0 likes@John Wilburn that statement is also useless because you're basing 'my' language skills to 'my' math skills. You're still trying to be edgy bud, get a life
0 likes@george hatzimanolakis My replies are only useless because they are directed to you.
0 likes@John Wilburn well then that implies that you're knowingly trolling. Even though I know u r, the absolute stupidity of all your comments in this thread make it hard to ignore. That's a notch for you sir
0 likes@Raptor302 They weren’t, 5 6 and 7 aren’t squares. Only the first was the product of two squares (4)
0 likes@Z A My point was any number can be squared
0 likesIt might have been easier if the grammar had been different, the second to the last word in the question might have been expressed"squared" instead of "square"
0 likes@0xVENx0 you are correct, the second to the last word in the question should have been expressed as "squared" instead of just "square".
0 likes@Bombo Cropper that's what confused me. I've never heard it like in the video
0 likesI'm less upset about him not knowing and more upset at the 70% of the audience for getting it wrong.
1 likeAt first I thought the answer was 25, but after rereading how the question was written, I changed my answer to 16. I can't blame this contestant for having the same misunderstanding of the question, given its wording.
3 likesReplies (2)
What wording? It's clear and not misleading. Assuming you know what a square number and a sum is there's nothing confusing about the question.
1 likeBro ever heard of PYTHAGORAS THEOREM. Its literally so clear
0 likesOne of the pythagoras triplets is 3,4,5.
Now if we square it it would be 9,16,25 and we know that that 5 is the sum of the squares of 3 and 4 and according to the basic amths philosophy a ratio cant be changed in its value if it is squared or multipled or divided by the same number hence the we can easily square the triplet 3,4,5.Thus we can make it out that 25 is the sum of 16 and 9
lmfao the audience really pulled a slick one on him
0 likesIts preety tricky if your first language isn't english but when i translated it in my head it was much easier
0 likesGod I wish someone would ask me a question this easy for 16 grand
3319 likesReplies (26)
Fricking same
50 likesKeep wishing.
33 likesDon't forget the 8 other questions before this one
136 likesnah men, before the game the staffs will do a background check on you before they make the questions
81 likesSame
3 likesIt was technically asked very badly though. The question was which of them was the sum of 2 smaller square numbers. Which means the correct answer is ALL of them. They didn't say integers, just numbers. For instance 5.76+10.24=16. Both 5.76 and 10.24 are square numbers. Just not integers.
55 likesFunny how this has 1.6k likes
2 likesA square number is defined by its square root being a natural number, so 5.76 is not a square number
24 likesYou;re so cool
4 likes@Jerry Li I think that only applies.to perfect squares and i didn't notice the word perfect in the question.
8 likessame
0 likesAlso I love how I answered this 8 years ago lol, before I made my first ever youtube video too lol
0 likesYou shouldnt because the answer is all of them, since the question doesent ask for whole numbers.
3 likesSo technically you would have lost
@monstertrucktennis why be pedantic when you haven’t got a grasp of what you’re being pedantic about? Perfect square and square number are synonyms, and no one who studies mathematics even uses the former term.
12 likes@gurrrn sorry, i don't study math.
0 likesI use it.
You know, like in the real world.
Can you be honest with me ? Do you think your a good person? Yes ? How many lies have you told in your life, have you stolen something, even if it’s little ? Have you ever used Gods name in vain ? Jesus said whoever looks at a women to lust for her has committed adultery with her in his heart, have you look with lust? I’m sure we have broken these commandments. So by your own admission via your conscious you have admitted to being a lying thieving blasphemous adulterer at heart do you still think your a good person ? You have to stand before God on judgment day, now if He judges you by those Ten Commandments do you think you’ll be innocent or guilty? Sin is so serious to God that He gives us capital punishment, death for our sins. The Bible says for the wages of sin is death, we earn death because we sin against God. But God provided a way out of hell. God "Jesus" in the flesh lived a perfect sinless life and paid our fine we owed God from our sins by suffering and dying on the
0 likescross. And on the third day He rose from the grave and defeated death, it was impossible that death could hold Him. And if you want to be saved you must repent of all your sins "which means turn from them"and not live a hypocritical life which means you say, I'm a Christian but still lie, steal and fornicate, and you must trust alone in Jesus not in good works or you being a good person and the Bible says God will give you everlasting life. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9
yh lol
0 likesSame
0 likesyou shouldn’t say God’s name in vain as he has a purpose. God bless
0 likes@monstertrucktennis who doesn’t?
0 likesKeep wishing
0 likes@medexamtoolsdotcom Your interpretation is technically correct but I think it’s pretty clear what the question was trying to convey, and of course all of the answers are not correct. I like how you thought outside the box though.
4 likesyes we get it you’re good at math
2 likesprobably terrible at other things instead then.. like everyone else
@Javier Vera Square numbers are by definition whole numbers.
2 likes@TheFinalChapters yes, my bad
0 likesIt's not that easy.
0 likesNO IT'S NOT, shut your mouth up in advance.
Whenever doing Pythagoras, 3^2 + 4^2 is a classic
0 likesThe last clap said: We are all in this together.
2 likesY'all should know that this man could have different education than some of y'all😭💀 also places teach subjects a different grades. This was learned in middle school for me in the 8th grade
0 likesThey caused him $15000 and then clapped for him is the ultimate troll😂😂😂
0 likesSo now we know. Study maths in case it proves useful answering a quiz question.
0 likesPythagores has left the chat
4642 likesReplies (41)
*Pythagoras
237 likes@Olly Dickinson no one cares about a little spelling mistake
68 likesIndrit Binaj I do
168 likesProbably he forgot how to spell Pythagoras and he thought he spelt it right so he didn't even edit the comment to fix the mistake
13 likes@Glatier8171 or he simply does not care.
37 likesSpelling has left the chat
29 likesOlly Dickinson you care about spelling mistakes done by other people on the internet? Therapy bro, therapy. Urgently! It’ll do you well. Best of luck with life
9 likes@Santi Decunto Imagine telling someone to go to therapy just because he pointed out a spelling mistake.
49 likes「Bryce」 imagine that! :)
1 like@Indrit Binaj lol marks will be deducted if you spell pythagoras theorem wrongly
1 like@Olly Dickinson Will the Theorem get changed if the spelling gets wrong? Will it become (3^2) + (4^2)= (7^2) ?
0 likes😂😂😂
0 likes@Santi Decunto you care about someone correcting spelling mistakes done by other people on the internet? Therapy bro, therapy. Urgently! It’ll do you well. Best of luck with life
11 likesYep... I thought he’d made himself immortal. But 2,500 years later 70% of folks have killed him off!
0 likes@Santi Decunto lol I guess we all know who needs therapy after being so frustrated for correcting a spelling mistake
6 likesLol
0 likesExactly.
0 likesLike here https://youtu.be/59x7KJ1zKvQ
Lol
0 likesI am Pythagoras
0 likesSpelling has left the chat
0 likesPythagores is actually the plural of Pythagoras in Greek, but then you'd have to say Pythagores have left the chat :P
0 likesPythagores has suicide after that 😂
0 likes@Olly Dickinson Πυθαγόρας**
0 likesLeader of a murdery math cult
0 likesHappy to see him leave
I was thinking the exact same.
0 likes@Glatier8171 He doesn't care, and why should he?
0 likes@Olly Dickinson *Πυθαγόρας
0 likes@AKRIDASGAMWEKSOGIINI In Greek, the plural of a suffix ending in -is becomes -es (analysis > analyses; hypothesis > hypotheses); and -a becomes -as or -ae (vertebra > vertebras or vertebrae; formula > formulas or formulae),
0 likeshowever, for the suffix -as, we have little guidance, since we might simply determine that "Pythagoras" ends in "s" and thus we would possibly have to resort to -s becomes -ses;
now, we might also extend this further and assert that -as becomes -ases or -asses;
therefore, we might finally and rightly contend that the plural in Greek for Pythagoras should actually then be: Pythagorases or Pythagorasasses. I'll show myself out. - j q t -
@John Quill Taylor bruh..
0 likesfirst: vertebra and formula are Latin words
second: there's plenty of guidance for the suffix -as in Greek: μαλάκας > μαλάκες, αιθέρας > αιθέρες etc.
third: trust me I'm Greek :)
Well now he has since his name was spelled wrong
0 likesPythagorean triplet could get you $16,000
0 likes😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
0 likesi laughed
0 likesHe never entered
0 likesTried figuring this one out before watching his response, took me an embarrassing amount of time to remember that 3,4,5 is a pythagorean triple
0 likes*pythagoras
0 likesDon’t you mean Gougu? That being said I still vote for pythagoras
0 likes@michael purtell No, Baudhayana theorem
0 likes@Anonymations was trying to emulate presh talwaker many cultures knew the relationship But I agree Baudhayana is considered the first
0 likes@Ethan Patzer Lmaooo
0 likesspelling has left the chat
0 likesThe question begins with her saying "This is for sixteen thousand" so "16" has been plugged into his subconscious, and under the pressure of the situation that number will keep sounding right to him, especially as it also has the symmetry pointed out by many people here, ie 16 = 2^2 x 2^2. The same would go for the audience (albeit, under less pressure). Tough one!
1 likeI've watched a lot of Derren Brown - who (for those who don't know him) specialises in directing people's behaviour with subconsious cues.
Replies (2)
Yea ok doofus, it’s easy math. I wasn’t saying 16 16 16 watching the video. How come the Jedi mind trick didn’t work on me?
1 like@Thecheekclapper
1 like"Doofus'. Ouch! 😭
I wasn't talking about you, Sir, but about this smart man getting a mathematical question wrong, which normally he'd be able to get.
You didn't have pressure of the situation, the majority of the audience also saying "16", and also that sound "16 thousand" at the back of your mind.
It isn't "easy math" - that's why it's a $16,000 question.
It's not "What is the square root of 3 squared plus 4 squared?". Which would be "easy", and maybe worth $500, because even that would be a challenge for most people.
But the question requires someone to work backwards from a number to pick one of four constructions, under pressure.
The scariest part of this video is that only 30% of audience gave the right answer
12 likesReplies (2)
Well, for me, the scariest part of this is that you think 30% of the audience gave the correct answer when it clearly reads 22%.
0 likesYou didn't even need to read the question or do any maths, just copy a two digit number.
@I'm not arrogant, I'm just better than you. there are clearly two polls shown in this video studio poll and AOL poll (America online poll) and I'm clearly talking about the studio poll which shows that 30% audience chose option B 25=(3^2)+(4^4) so your reply makes no sense you are clearly arrogant but you ain't even better than those 70% people who can't even do basic math
0 likesYou ever notice how easy the question was once you heard the answer??
0 likesWhen the question originally popped up, I thought that it was reasonable to get it wrong… with only a few seconds to answer, it can be stressful. Then he’s sitting there for like a solid minute and still not answering
0 likesPythagoras looking at him from up above: These people never understood me.
0 likes2:18 wow we made this guy lose 15k. Lets start applauding
2258 likesReplies (19)
curtis king oh my goodness XD
4 likesLmaoooo
2 likesbest comment XD
2 likesBest comment!
0 likes@Robert M. 😁😂😂😂😂😂😂
0 likeslol
0 likesLol im the thousand like
0 likeswhy bother keying in an answer if you're just going to guess?
10 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY what do u expect from harsh white people
2 likesracist much? you can't even see the audience, how do you know they're white??
8 likesProlific Pineapples I doubt it 🤣🤣🤣
1 likeHahaha legend comment!
0 likesActually, he lost $7,000. He was at $8K before this question.
1 likeIt did cost him 15k but he only lost 14k.
0 likes@WonderWhatHappened No, he was at $8K before this question came up. It was for $16,000. He got it wrong and he lost $7,000.
1 like@Dylan Jones No.. He drops to $1000.
0 likes@WonderWhatHappened That's basically what I just said. He lost $7K of his $8,000 and left with $1,000.
1 like@Dylan Jones You are right he lost 7k
0 likesLmaoo
0 likesLiterally Pythagorean theorem and the perfect triangle💀
0 likesIn these situations you need to have nerves of steel and start counting, double checking and excluding
0 likesthis vid reminds me of how math ruined my everyday life
1 likeThis is so easy, I already know the answer as soon as I read the question, we learned this in grade 8 here in China and about 3 other similar sets of numbers used for right triangle problems.
0 likesngl I was sure it was 16 because I thought that whatever the square root of the number was also had to be a square root, then I realized that 16+9=25 and that both of those are square roots and now I feel that I've been stupid for too long
0 likesAs someone who always chooses anything that ends with the number 5 when faced with a mathematical problem, this brought a smile to my face.
5427 likesEdit: I decided to check the comments again, and oh boy did the math professors came.
Replies (35)
😂😂
19 likesWhat's 1+1?
45 likes@Sayantan Saha 5?
267 likes@Sayantan Saha 5 flipped upside down
254 likes@Sayantan Saha at least -5
31 likesGood luck doing that in calculus.
20 likes@Satrick Ptar limit as x goes to 75 of x
39 likesa: 48
b: e^pi(i)+1
c: ln(2)
d: 75
ends, not end's
4 likesWhat should be the age of consent?
91 likesA: 12
B: 14
C: 16
D: 5
@Taxtro 25
30 likes@Taxtro 5, tho I would suggest it to be atleast -5
12 likes@LoganXavier Ayyy you did math!
0 likesends*
0 likes@Sayantan Saha If you asked for the answer for 2 + 2, I would’ve actually said 5 because of the Polish meme. 😂😂😂
0 likes@KaaiPlaysPiano d?
1 likeBut shouldn't it be:
lim f(x)
x --> 75
If you put:
lim x
x --> 75
then it must be 75 right?
@Taxtro 65
1 like@PyrowolfCB yes, it is 75.
0 likes@KaaiPlaysPiano les gooooo
0 likes@PyrowolfCB i mean you couldve also just chose the one that ends in 5
2 likes@KaaiPlaysPiano lol
0 likes@Taxtro lol
0 likesIkr
0 likesOh boy I hope no one asks you whats 2.5 x 2
0 likesLol not me I just thought of the 3,4,5 triangle.
1 likewhat is 01000101 (binary) in base 4? (good luck with a 5 there ;) )
0 likes@PyrowolfCB the question is wrong, because he should have also shown the function, but d can be an answer for the function f(x)=x
0 likes?bruhhh
0 likes69 is the real answer
0 likes@Sayantan Saha x 😌
0 likes@KaaiPlaysPiano That's not what I meant. I'm talking more about problems that require proving. E.g. Given a function f(x,y,z) and a positive ε, show that ∃ δ > 0 such that ∀ (x,y,z):
0 likes√(x²+y²+z²)<δ implies |f(x,y,z)-f(a,b,c)|<ε
Well, it's not so hard to show that since it's just using the definition of a limit in higher dimension but that's the first thing that came to mind.
@Satrick Ptar im not sure what this comment means
2 likesbut the answer is 175, i decided
What if the question is "which one is a prime number"?
0 likes@Sayantan Saha since 1 can also be written as ½ + ½,
0 likes½+ ½ + ½ + ½ = ?
(½ + ½)² +( ½ + ½)²
Now taking denominator common ((1+1)/2)² + ((1+1)/2)² =( 2/2)² + (2/2)²
4/4 + 4/4
Now taking squareroot cause why not
√(4/4) + √(4/4) = 2/2 + 2/2
Now taking the denominator common again
(2+2)/2 = 4/2
4/2 = 2
Therefore, 1+1 = 2
@KaaiPlaysPiano d
0 likesMakes absolutely no sense why you’d choose “5” for any difficult math problem.
0 likesFigured that surprisingly quick. First take any of the numbers minus 1 to see if a squared number comes out, then 2, then 4 and so on until you find another squared number.
0 likesReplies (1)
2 is not a square
0 likesTbh the wording confused me a little bit. I thought for some reason that the square root can be split into two components and then square those to get the original. Eg. 25 -> 5. So you can have 3 and 2 squared to add up to 25 (which it doesn't, and that doesn't work for any of them lol).
0 likesI can see how someone would not immediately understand the question but it was perfectly clear to me right away
1 likeThe audience was like "We got him guys!" 😂
1 likeReplies (1)
I’ve seen them do that to at least one unlikable contestant. They couldn’t have done that this time on purpose.
0 likesAs an Indian I just figured out the answer as soon as I saw the thumbnail😊
0 likes"When will I ever use this after high school"
1062 likesReplies (17)
Technically it’s not a valid counter to ‘when will I use this’ cause you volunteer to go on this show and it’s your decision on what knowledge you keep lol
47 likesRyanGames not even learnt in high school lmao we taught us this when we were 12 or 13
31 likes12 or 13 is secondary here in London lol, when you learn square numbers in primary/elementary this should be easy
8 likesVöł secondary isnt equal to high school
0 likes@dellort tog uoy And who's retarded? -.-
1 likein competitive exams
0 likes@Saurabh Pathak In Finland we dont have competitive exams 😆😆
1 like@Erika Alexandra ahaaan get the joke dear (:
0 likes@Erika Alexandra And lucky you.. Thats boon right from heaven
0 likes@Saurabh Pathak 😆
0 likes@Erika Alexandra your insta??
0 likes@Saurabh Pathak Lilyevansoffici4l
0 likesOn a quiz show perhaps?
0 likesA lot of skills you learn in Maths are only useful for specific careers. By teaching them, it keeps your options open. I personally learn them because I find them interesting.
4 likes@Keur And he didn't say it was. Your point?
0 likes@Erika Alexandra Is that right ?
0 likes@ivolloxy never taught in America. And I'm American.
0 likesthe audience is clapping for its maths
0 likesI got the correct answer but at first I under analyzed the problem. I was thinking the square of the answer had to be one of the two numbers to be added. But I knew 16 was wrong right away.
0 likesAmerican school system in a nutshell
1 likeI thought it was 16 and was so confident about it, I literally can't read LMAO
0 likesCan we just talk about how 50% of the audience doesn't know the right answer
4 likesReplies (3)
No, I think that they just had wrong opinion about question. Firstly I answered A. It's hard to notice if you read fast that there is not word "product" but "sum". So part of people my think about 4x4=16 and not about 3^2+4^2=5^2
0 likes@Кирилл Русских assuming the vast majority of the audience are native speaking english speaking americans that's a poor excuse considering the fact the question was read multiple times. And that doesn't justify 72% failing 4th grade maths anyway.
1 like@mambda Ah... They all are native? Oh... Damn... That's sad and hillarious in one time, LMAO
1 likeI think the majority of the audience's interpretation was because 4 is 2 squared and 4 squared is 16 that is the answer.
1308 likesReplies (78)
Yup, thats where my head was at. Should've paid more attention in math class 🤦🏻♂️
140 likes@dlm9293 should have paid more attention to the question
394 likesi think they just picked randomly.
27 likesThe question literally says "sum".
116 likes@Hrit Roy the question really wasn’t that clear, lol. All of the numbers could have been summed from two squared complex numbers. This is just one example of how flawed the question was lol.
300 likes@Raleigh yeah I was really confused at first lol
13 likesFailed in English...
10 likesYeah, im not native. I can talk fluently on everyday things. But this one just stumped me. I learned math in another language lmao
53 likesThat’s what the question is trying to make you think but it’s actually asking something else!
9 likesThat's how I read the question. I was tricked!
9 likesNo lol 16 is obviously correct
4 likesAs a math Major this was fun to watxh 😀
1 like@Raleigh I doubt even a quarter of the audience knows what a complex number is
25 likes@Hrit Roy shut up
1 like@Basesixty that doesn’t even work in Base 60
1 like@a sheep true
0 likesYes, they are stupid. Don’t understand math or English.
4 likes@UCbPQ-uckoJs1cITehBdpMgQ fuck you and your question
0 likes@Raleigh Well the question says smaller square numbers and complex numbers aren’t smaller than real numbers.
9 likesIt would work out if the question said a product of. I thought of A as 8+8 but 8 is a cube root of 2 which erases it from the list of possible answers.
0 likesPls someone explain I am not native what was yhe question abt i also thoight it was 16 as 2x2=4 and 4x4=16
15 likes@Just a random person sum of two squares, not a multiple. 25 is 16 plus 9, which is 4 squared plus 3 squared.
28 likesShe said sum of square numbers, not product.
10 likesSo that assumes they just don't know what sum means, which is sad but understandable
2 likes@Raleigh No, the problem is perfectly clear. To be a "square number," it's roots must be rational
18 likesThat makes no sense, where in that reasoning is the sum?
1 like@Raleigh stop playing smartass, it’s obvious the question is about a whole number being the sum of two whole numbers that are themselves squares. It’s a number theory question, not an algebra question (root of polynomials).
9 likesYeah that was my answer. They should added more info, like what’s the sum when added together.
0 likes@Imanuel "happens to be the sum" means when added together
7 likesThe result when u add something is called sum
It's either that, or they wanted him to lose...
0 likesSo your argument is that the audience is bad at both English and math then? Would never have happened in Europe, even in the UK.
1 like0^2 + 4^2 = 16
10 likesIf you didn’t get the right answer then you are in the 70% of the audience who didn’t get the right answer. Don’t try acting like you were too smart to get the answer they were looking for.
1 likeUm, what? But how does that interpretation correspond to the original question?
0 likes@Mark Which of these square numbers also happens to be the product of two smaller square numbers?
4 likesAnswer: 16
Edit: Because the number is the result of two other square numbers my mind automatically went for a square of squares. Totally skipping over the word sum .
@Dexter Antonio Your calculation is right, of course, but it is not a valid answer to the question as it specifically says "sum of two smaller square numbers".
4 likes@Jens Raab 0 is a square number
0 likes@Dexter Antonio Sure, but your calculation is 0+16=16. And the question demands two smaller square numbers.
8 likes0 is smaller than 16, but 16 is not smaller than 16...
@Michael M Based.
0 likes@Animax now i know why i chose 16 , i missed the word SUM .
1 likeThanks math telling me I still stupid .
@Raleigh its absolutelly clear. A square number is per definition a numer that is produced by a natural number times itself.
2 likes@Chancellor Palpatine no it must be natural
0 likesNo
0 likes@Raleigh @Raleigh for example? I mean from 16,25,36,49
0 likesYea thats what I was thinking
0 likes@Hrit Roy oh genius
2 likesStfu girl, the question was also kinda tricky so many ppl thought the same numbers so did the guy on hot seat
Sum.
0 likes@Dexter Antonio QED
0 likes@Jens Raab the question doesn't especify if the smaller number is the squared number or the positive root of the squared number.
1 like4 is not smaller than 4 but 4 is smaller than 16.
even the logic doesnt make sense
0 likesSum: I guess i don't exist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 like@[redactado] [redactado] The text of the question is very clear: the correct solution is "the sum of two smaller square numbers". Not of smaller roots, of two smaller square numbers!
3 likesYeah it's sum not product, that messed me up too.
2 likesYeah, that was where my brain went.
0 likes@Dexter Antonio "0^2 + 4^2 = 16" -- that's why the question asked for two smaller numbers, moron
1 like@Raleigh yea the question was flawed. So the real answer was actually incorrect.
1 likeThe question is worded incorrectly. I believe 16 is correct answer.
0 likes@Al Quinn it says "which one of these square numbers also happen to be the sum!" One of those four in the list is the SUM of "two smaller square numbers" so only TWO other square numbers is what we are looking for NOT THREE square numbers.
0 likesIf they said "whole" number then none are correct. The never said using whole numbers so all of them are correct.
0 likes@stressed by a mountain of books I relate so hard with that lol
0 likes@afsa h i never said three square numbers. why is everyone hallucinating over this question?
0 likes@Al Quinn sorry I meant the other ppl lol
0 likesYes because the audience are morons that prefer to think "Oh 16 is a nice number" instead of actually reading the question
0 likes@Dexter Antonio then it would be only 4 but there is no option of 4
0 likes@Al Quinn also 0^2 and 4^2 means 0+4 which is 4 there is no option of 4.
0 likesYou guys don't know basic maths.
5 likesI think they thought 8 was a square number, but it is only a cube number.
0 likes@Peachy Pie well, hello there, fellow 35P! Always amusing finding someone outside the rabbit hole
0 likesWhat I thought
0 likesShould've went to highschool
@Aether Faq 😎
0 likesI really dont get it, it literally says "sum" so i dont know how you can interpretate otherwise lol
0 likesBut 2² + 4² is not equal to 16 , They clearly wrote ' Sum '
1 like@Raleigh Holy shitt dudee yeaaa 💀💀, they should have mentioned the word ' perfect square '
2 likesCoz like even (√8)² + (√8)² = 16
@Raleigh Yeah, but while technically true, it's pretty damn obvious just by using basic logic that they are only looking for the sum of two squared integers. Anyone of at least average intelligence should be able to deduce the intended answer pretty easily. Unfortunately the average IQ of YouTube commenters happens to be roughly 85 or so (I'm not joking or making this up).
1 like@Dexter Antonio That's not the question that was asked
0 likesYeah, they dumb
0 likes16 is also correct since 16 = sqrt(12)^2 + 2^2. In fact all answers are correct since they all satisfy x^2 + y^2 = z.
0 likesBut that wasn't the question.
0 likesDon't trust the masses when it comes to maths or science 😅
1 likeAfter that night, everyone who was a part of that audience was never seen again.
0 likesThis is how a villain was born....
0 likesaudience nailed the prank... 🤣🤣
1 likeLiterally this question is fit in mind of every Asian middle schooler 💀
0 likes... don't Americans learn about pythagorean triples in high school?
27 likesSee kids..this is why you shouldn't ask your math teacher, "when would we ever use this irl"
0 likesA bold assumption that the common audience member knows math better than him.
1 likeWhen knowing Maths stops you getting laid.
0 likesTo be fair, these kind of math questions are difficult for most; even college graduates. Math is a language, so just the wording loses half the people, and then most folks already don't know what a square number is.
0 likesReplies (1)
Bloody hell. Did you even go to school? Anyone who attended college should know what a square number is. You learn what a square number is in primary school.
2 likesThat question was asked in a very strange way.
1 likeI'm just laughing at the shameless of the audiance after giving the dogshit answer that they DARE TO CLAP 😂😂.
1079 likesReplies (12)
The audience was directed to clap after every answer.
8 likesThat’s… Kinda stupid.
1 like@Sanidhya Suresh Since you are passionate about English grammar, I'm sure you won't mind me issuing the following correction:
0 likesReally? Go read some English grammar.
@Sanidhya Suresh I think you do have the patience because you successfully typed the first one; that means that you must have lacked the knowledge to avoid creating a fused sentence. You seem to be having further difficulties with English, so allow me to assist:
3 likesBruh, I don't have the patience to put a freakin' question mark and all, but that guy seriously said "shameless of the people."
As you can see, there were even more errors in the above sentence, but perhaps the most egregious of these is the lack of a comma before "and," which resulted in a run-on sentence. When using a coordinating conjunction to link two independent clauses, one should always designate the end of the first clause with a comma. Punctuation is organization, and organization facilitates coherence.
@WaitingtoHit fr. bro had the energy to put in the first question mark but didnt know to put in the second, and blames it on laziness💀
1 likeStudio audiences to a TV or radio program are directed to applaud whenever the director turns on the"Applause" sign. On this program, one such instance occurs when a contestant finishes her/his turn in "the hot seat," regardless of how that turn ends (missing a question, leaving without answering the question, or winning the million dollars).
0 likes@WaitingtoHit alright you ended me there, you win
3 likes0_o it's kinda lively here huh
0 likes@Sanidhya Suresh brah, you took one on one with your indian accent? I can feel your words. "D"....... engDish grammar. KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu KuDu.
0 likes@prrithwiraj barman lol this is soo immature, you judging some random person on the internet you don't even know
0 likes@Sanidhya Suresh ayooo, i didn’t judge anyone. Because you are already "Ended" 💀💀💀
0 likesXD
@prrithwiraj barman do you have any kind of sense as to wtf you're talking
0 likesAnd this is the "real world situation" the teachers were always yakking on about
0 likes🙋♂️ I understand the question and I understand the answer, but I don’t know how I’d go about figuring it out by myself. Is there some way to intuitively know which square numbers are contained by other square numbers other than brute forcing it?
0 likesReplies (2)
There are methods but those aren't easily done in the head. So brute forcing it is. However, considering the first squares only (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49) there's not much need for brute forcing. Also 3, 4, 5 is probably the most famous Pythagorean Triple.
4 likesIt's only a hand full of numbers. Just try them out.
0 likes"hard to do math when you're up here"
0 likes- a guy who's never done math
It was funny that he didn't know the answer.
0 likesIt was sad that the audience didn't know the answer.
I thought it was 25 as well. It’s important to learn your ²
0 likesI love how she had to remind him he had other lifelines because she knew he completely wasted that one.
939 likesReplies (3)
Yes and she even urged him to think about it and try and work it out from how it's written
47 likesYeah but in reality a host shouldn't hint you whether the audience is wrong or right, that's cheating. It's supposed to be a risk he takes with that lifeline. So I still respect that he ignored her warning.
1 like@Daniel Hoang i don't think it's cheating, because while the hosts pretty often make it seem like they're subtly hinting an answer - from time to time their hints point in the wrong direction.
0 likes(most often when the player is already settling for the correct answer, and they provoke them into doubting themselves).
so you can never know for the sure if the hint is genuine, which is part of the drama of the show, the way i see it.
It was simple logic of a Pythagorean triplet😂(If he had remembered the concept)
0 likesBruh, as soon as she read the question i know what the answer was. It's often a go to for people writing maths questions on Pythagoras when they want it to be a nice, small integer.
0 likesWhen the audience also doesn't know math lmao
0 likesBruh it’s literally the 3,4,5 Pythagorean theorem combo 😭😭
1 likeReplies (1)
Anyone can feel confused by this question if they have forgotten the precise definition of the term "square number";
1 likeeven people who have studied high-level math, because high-level math can be learned without knowing exactly what "square number" means, since you are almost never explicitly asked to specify that term in those math courses.
I guess the audience just pressed the wrong answer to let the boy learn a lesson of his life... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likesAt first I couldn't figure it out because I assumed the two square numbers had to be the same... And I was stumped because NONE of them were correct under that assumption. I could imagine under this pressure it'd be even harder to think straight.
1978 likesReplies (36)
Geopat Exactly the same I thought! Lol😂
67 likesThe questions says "... the sum of two smaller...".
31 likesThis in the day to day language means "two different numbers".
So I get what you're saying, but remember this is a show broadcasted on TV...
I totally understand what you mean. I did get it right, but AFTER I read a comment saying “It took me a minute to understand the question.” That’s when I thought, “Hhhhmmmm maybe I need to read the question again.” I was trying to put myself under pressure like this guy by making myself answer it right away. When I read the question again with better composure, I got the answer right away. Honestly, people need to stop being condescending because unless you’ve been in his position watched by a live audience and millions of TV viewers, as well as having a lot of money at stake, we really don’t have the right to say anything.
107 likesSame here. Took a minute to understand the question before I found the answer.
13 likesSupaDupaPixelGirl You’re parallel to someone who has the right to say something to a student, but you don’t have the right to be their teacher. Also, I wasn’t replying to you. Furthermore, your last sentence speaks volumes about your character as well as your lack of composure.
18 likesThere is no square number that is the sum of two equal square numbers, because the square root of 2 is irrational
28 likes@Chitralekha Vashishtha I did that same thing. Then I read your comment lol
1 likeLuis, smartest response I've seen here. Me, I just thought ... Pythagoras. 3 - 4 - 5 is the classic example used in teached the Pythagorean theorem. And if you don't know what that is, I'm not explaining ... because you were probably one of the people that said A.
0 likesO yea I assumed this too
0 likesAlex Chan
0 likesJm
SupaDupaPixelGirl hh
0 likesGeopat i'd think that,too. The question was not clearly enought
0 likesI assumed this too
0 likesI understand the man's problem but what about the idiotic 50% of the audience. They weren't under any pressure
7 likes@Roronoa ZoroI'd still feel a little pressure if someone was relying on my answer to win $15,000.
3 likes@Jorgie dude you're one in a fifty or so..... least you could have done was at least think for common sense answer
2 likesThought the same, very silly question. They should of made it a lot more clear. I literally tried to work it out for 10 minutes.
0 likesRelatable
0 likesGeopat I also did the same but then I quickly figured it out. And it comes out I figured right
0 likesSteel Vendetta the question is straightforward, you just start from every smaller square number, eg 4 and minus from each option to see if the outcome is also a square, you do this till you work up to the highest number. The man could’ve easily used his brain but I understand the pressure. I found the answer by getting 5 minus it from 25 and the answer
0 likesI initially thought the same, but there's no possible answer, so I had to re-read it again. XD
0 likesI barely even read the question and I saw 25, I immediately knew what was going on and knew it was B. Come on, this is one of the most basic math, but people prefer to waste their time in trash TV shows and series than to learn something useful for their lives and society.
2 likesAgreed I majored in statistics and the phrasing of the question also stumped me
2 likesits impossible for them to be the same
0 likeslet a and b be natural numbers and
a^2+a^2=b^2
2a^2=b^2
b=-sqrt(2)a or sqrt(2)a
both of the options contain an irational number and an intiger
thus meaning that b must be irational
but thats contradcting the first statement meaning the condition we set on a,b is impossible
thus the sum of two similar square can never be a square number
hahaha wow that's funny..i literally wrote the exact same comment. glad I'm not the only one.
0 likesSame.
0 likesYes me too my friend
0 likeswhy would you assume that? it says "sum of two smaller squares", not "two times a smaller square". also, there is literally no square number with that property.
0 likes@poignant it doesnt have to mean two different numbers, at least not in math talk. however it should be very clear from the phrasing that choosing two different numbers is not excluded.
0 likesWhy did you assume that? Just curious. As in, what in the wording of the original question made you think that?
0 likessame here
0 likesIn fact, there are NO perfect squares that match the conditions you thought they were asking for, because that would require the square root of 2 to be a rational number. See if a number is a perfect square, it is of the form x=n^2. But if y=2*n^2 is also to be a perfect square, then y=m^2, and the result would be the square root of 2 could be expressed as m/n with integers m and n.
0 likesI agree! Same thing happened to me. Even though it can be solved with basic math is not an easy question to answer at that moment.
0 likesYup the question was unfair
0 likesSame lol
0 likesWhy on Earth would you add your own arbitrary restrictions on top of a math problem? Having trouble understanding this but a lot of people are saying it. If I asked you to find two numbers that sum to 25, would you assume they have to be the same?
0 likesIt is why you should focus on your studies and mainly maths.
0 likesI struggled with math at school - somehow made it through 58 years in life so far without that question surfacing, lol. But hey...I would've gone home with $1k I didn't have when I arrived for the game. That's simple math I can relate to.
2 likesThe guy who knew Pythagorean triples 🗿
0 likesNow I realise why I took science 🙂. This was totally common for me . Specially this one 25 .
1 likeI got that but it was all about remembering 3 squared being 9 then adding 16 (4 squared) to get 25. Wouldn't say this was impossibly easy.
8 likesReplies (3)
I got confused cause i thought the 2 numbers had to be identical 😭
7 likes@Michael Thompson me too! Don't know why... I have no problem to solve fucking integrals and stuff but this one really confused me
0 likes@Julia אסתר מילשטיין I simply cannot fathom how people found this difficult.
1 likeAnyone who has ever streamed themselves gaming knows how this guy feels. It's so much different than playing alone, with zero pressure
1019 likesReplies (21)
I used to be a streamer, part time, streamed around 2 hours 50+ times. I can say that it's really not that big of a deal, but yes, your focus will shift from the game to chat, and that moment triggers a really terrible and unnerving feeling. The feeling of being good at something but showing the opposite of it, helplessly
49 likesI played against my favorite pro starcraft player in person once.
27 likesyou never really know when or how the pressure is going to affect you until you're there.
God I played like I was bronze, but I was mid-diamond at the time
Yep. You can be really smart, but being nervous can make you fuck up anything.
39 likesThe audience has no such excuse, however.
@Marcelo Elias You can be really smart and very ignorant of mathematics. He's clearly very ignorant of mathematics.
0 likes@Marcelo Elias Well I don't think everyone in the audience was prepared to answer the question, the host gave em like 5 seconds to choose their answer.
1 like@Airwreck It's literally basic trigonometry
0 likes@Marcelo Elias right, but 5 seconds is barely enough time to actually read the question if they weren't paying attention, why do you think they got it wrong? they probably just guessed cuz they panicked.
0 likes@Airwreck Unless they all have ADHD, I'm pretty sure they paid attention to the question. I mean, they went to see this live and all that.
2 likes@Marcelo Elias alright bud, so I guess they're all just idiots and that's why they got the question wrong.
0 likes@Marcelo Elias I've been in a high honors math class (calculus currently) and even I got the question wrong. The question is worded so the question seems obvious at first. From my observation, this question makes you think of a smaller square number than 16, the first thing your mind jumps to should be 4 (or 2^2). You have to pay attention to the "sum" part of the question and realize that you have to use two different square numbers.
13 likes@Hugo Whitacre the host even accentuates sum when reading the question, and it's like basic reading comprehension, no idea how people can miss it
3 likesI don't have a problem with someone not having a clear idea of what "square" and "sum" mean. However, I don't like the fact that he didn't even TRY to interpret the question out loud, which is what many people would do.
4 likesHe would, at very least, have given himself a chance if he'd said some thoughts out loud, something like this...
"Okay, I'll try to figure this out. We're talking about square numbers. All of these are apparently square numbers. Is 16 a square number? It's 4 times 4, right? That's what square MEANS... right? Okay... so now I want to find one that is the SUM of some other numbers... and they have to be squares too. What does SUM mean? Does SUM mean adding or multiplying?"
If he had done that, more of the audience probably would have gotten it right.
If he's incapable of reasoning like that, then he's not equipped to win a lot of money on a quiz show.
@UTU49 well not everyone does their thinking out loud so i don't think you should judge people's smartness based on whether they spoke or not. this is more a case of critical thinking skills.
3 likesClearly, this guy was under pressure. i tried to answer this question without pausing the video and i still felt pressured and was incorrect. i reasoned in my had that this question is asking for the pythag theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2), but even then i had a mental blank and didn't remember the 3,4,5 triangle or was able to figure out which numbers to use.
Though I do agree that speaking out loud would have helped. Not always, but on this specific game show it does help to speak out loud because the hosts will try to be as forgiving and helpful as possible. The host even says that she wasn't sure of his thought process so she can't judge whether the audience poll helped or not. If she knew what he was thinking it would've been easier for her to hint him in the right direction.
@Hugo Whitacre No, it doesn't "make" you do anything of the sort. You do that all on your own.
0 likes@demon in denim Oh no. His 'smartness' is judged upon him failing an elementary math question. It is simply implied from there, that he didn't even try to think it through.
0 likesI played fortnite with a big streamer callled xqc for an hour in front of over 100K live viewers, I actually just felt nervous the first minutes and then it was completely chill and I could focus great, I guess im just built different
0 likes@Arian65 yeah but nobody cares about fortnite except 12 year olds
0 likes@UTU49 It's easy for us to reason it out with no time crunch and no pressure, but up there on stage, you could see his mind blanked out. So he asked the audience, who were given a pretty short amount of time to reason it out. So he went with the majority, which happened to be wrong.
0 likes@Kamike Serpentail Yup, 100% this. You never know how you are going to react until you are in that situation. Nerves, stage fright, being star struck, and the like all can make you freeze up with panic, fear, or both. Once either of those set in, it's much harder to think clearly, let alone when you are on a time crunch.
0 likes@Hugo Whitacre They also used some basic psychology too. They started with 16, which as you said, 2x2=4 and 4x4=16. That thought went through a lot of heads right away, even mine until I took a step back and reasoned it out, and once your mind is on that train of thought it's REALLY easy to overlook the word sum.
0 likesTrue, but it should have been simple for any college student.
0 likes3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is literally the example of every pythagoras theorem. All he needed to know was the square between 1 and 7.
0 likesIt's option B!! Pythagorean triplet!!!😭😭 Man would've prolly watched memes during his math class!!!😭😭😂😂
0 likesAVERAGE AMERICAN IN MATHS😂
1 likeTook me 30 seconds to get it, I realized it was easier to try to subtract the smaller square numbers from each and the number 9 made me immediately realize 25 was the answer, especially when you literally get 16 subtracting 9 from it.
0 likesI mean you have the choice between any prime numbers derived from 1 - 6, wasn't that hard.
I feel really sad for audience 😂😂😂😂😂 secondly for this guy 😂😂😂😂
0 likesBasically, you're supposed to recognize that 25 = 16 + 9 = 4^2 + 3^2. If you have enough time you can do it by a process of elimination.
209 likesI think we all learned an important lesson though. Don't feel safe going with the slim majority or a plurality when it comes to math. Math is not democratic.
Replies (21)
He had enough time though
2 likesElsa Bunny Oh sure. Of course, they have to understand what's meant by a square number. Obviously the audience is confused about that, too.
5 likesAlan Falleur that's kind of sad if people don't know what's meant by a square number
9 likes+Elsa Bunny why? I heard that word like 30 years ago and it´s not like you need square numbers alot in your life. Well ok, sometimes you use them, but you dont think about how they are called. It´s not like you say "oh, I need the square number of 4 socks for this business trip". So either you got refreshed by school knowledge of your kids or you simply remember something. I don´t think it´s sad if others dont. It would be sad not to know how to square a number but who cares how the result is actually called? I need 8 pairs of socks. Got it.
4 likes+andimaterie the square of 4 is 18 :S
1 like+otaku chan it wont let me edit the comment but i meant *16 :D
0 likes+Alan Falleur I think the audience misunderstood the difference between "sum" and "product" 4x4=16
8 likes+andimaterie You should learn some more about the square numbers :^
1 likeIt wasn't about time and a process of elimination as he had absolutely no idea what to do.
1 likeNo matter how much time you gave him nor would he have known what to eliminate for what reason, he was just BLANK.
I'm not making fun of the guy or you, he just didn't know how to and a SIMPLE process of elimination as you call it, wouldn't have helped at all.
+Elsa Bunny
1 likei think a lot of people thought sum to mean multiple.
so 16= 4x4. 4 is a square. so 16 is the sum (multiple) of 2 squares.
+Alan Falleur It took me a while to realize what they meant by "square number". Any real number can be squared.
2 likes+Alan Falleur Well, the largest number was 49, or 7^2. If you just do the squares in your head you get to the answer pretty quick (1, 4, 9, 16) and see that 25 is the sum of two of those...
1 likeNot in america it isn't
0 likesI said 8 pairs. thats 16
0 likesNathan
0 likesand you should learn to read carefully. 8 pairs are 16 socks.
I looked at the numbers and immediately recognized it was 25. This guy, agh....
0 likes+merlinthegreat100 yeah, this took me 10 seconds to figure out...
0 likesAnd 8 pairs of socks is 16 socks, like he said, "Square number of 4 socks".
0 likesYes, it's basically like a 3 4 5 triangle
4 likesMath is not democratic, even in math course.
0 likesI mean it is a common triplet. It is more of general knowledge math
0 likesThe one who knows Pythagorean theorem can get it in seconds
0 likesI’m good at math but that was a bit of a tricky question. I thought a too- the way it was worded fooled me man
1 likeplot twist : he's now a mathematician
0 likesIt honestly took me about a minute to figure out the right answer (without looking) because I had to seriously pause and understand the exact wording on the question and what was asked. Unless you have this memorized you'd have to do a straight up count, both he and the audience rushed it
0 likes"Ryan, you sit right there, and audience, shame, shame on you. Don't you dare clap."
0 likesHow can one not know the most basic Pythagorean triplet?
10 likesReplies (2)
This is America we are talking about
1 like@chandan_is_here what
0 likesWhat's worse was actually the results of audience poll.
1 likeI was overthinking and thought the smaller square numbers had to be the same (like a 2²=2+2 type of situation) but reading the question again I realized the question was not asking for all that. I can see how someone would get it wrong. The pressure of being timed and having a large audience plus the whole world watching would cause me some serious mental blockage, especially once I realized I misunderstood the question.
5059 likesReplies (107)
Same I thought it was 2 of the same so I spent like 3 minutes trying to figure out which one it was then realized it had to be 2 different ones
308 likesI thought it was C because I for some reason thought 20 was a square number and forgot 9 was LOL
41 likesI completely agree. I was overthinking it too. Eventually I came to Choice B, but I'm just chilling on my own. Imagine all that people watching with those high stakes... I'd black out on math for sure. Sad.
122 likes@Ninjaslash52 it is the problem when your mother tongue is not english
56 likesYeah, me too.
4 likesExactly what I was thinking, I think it's a poor question
51 likesYes I was on the same track as question is formulated that way..
1 like@Prinz Jakob because (16=4*4=2*2*2*2)+(bad reading)
36 likesShe literally said he had a lot of time to think, he just couldn't
23 likesI was thinking the same thing
1 like@GGian_ REALLY bad reading cuz the que said sum, not product.
16 likes@Satwik K yeah XD
5 likes@rajatsingh9 no he was technically wrong. even if you assume that two equal numbers are valid, none of the answers work. 8+8=16 and 8 is not a square number, 25 and 49 arent even divisable by 2 and 18+18=36 and 18 is also no square number.
36 likesThe only answer that works, no matter if it wouldve stated "two different numbers" or not is B. 9+16=25, 9 is a square number and 16 is aswell.
@Satwik K no, sum is correct. a product is the result of a multiplication.
7 likes@Houdini you're a live example to what I said. Really bad reading. If you read again, you can see that I meant the same thing. That the que says sum and not product.
16 likesWhy on earth would you think that? Question is easy, you're bad at math.
10 likesPoor question lol
4 likesI literally did the exact same thing and it took me a while to realize the answer was B, 25 which is the sum of 9 (square root 3) and 16 (square root 4). Im wondering if half the people didnt vote and it defaults to answer A.
9 likesAbsolutely agree. I even have a stem degree and thought 16 at first, until I reread the question and realized I had misunderstood it.
10 likes@NoumenalSoup lol there are two kinds of people:
32 likesPerson 1 : oh I misread the question my bad
Person 2 : oh I found the right answer so I’m gonna research people who haven’t and say they are bad at math because it makes me feel better about myself.
I’ll let you figure out your category on your own …
Ps: there is more than square numbers in math, for math is a rich material therefore you can suck at one area and be a god at something else. This is not representative of your maths skills …
Uh, thank you for clarifying, I was on the same path and actually I think the question is very poorly formulated.
3 likesIt can‘t be the same square number twice because that would mean that the answer had to be an even number. Every number x2 is even. And since they would ask that, you would know that the answer could be two different numbers.
3 likesBecause it said "square numbers" I was thinking of the numbers to be squared, not the results of squaring. Welp
0 likessame here
0 likes2 is not a square number
1 likeTwice a positive square can never be a square. This is a direct consequence of unique factorization.
9 likesThe question was worded horribly - the sum of two square numbers of 25 is not 5. 5+5 is 10 and neither are square numbers.
1 likeSame
0 likesIt helps when you know the difference between "sum" and "same". In most countries people learn this at ages 6-8.
1 like@Crimson the sum of 16 and 9, which a both square numbers is 25. 25 is also a square number. 2000 years ago every Roman schoolboy was able to understand that.
7 likesThe sad thing was he wasn't even being timed so had time to actually work it out. It was simple enough for someone at college to work out, especially.
2 likesSame
0 likesIt's not possible to do that with integers, because you'd be effectively taking the square root of two, which is irrational.
4 likesAnyway, the easy way of doing this is to already have a concept of Pythagorean triples; that way the answer leaps out.
Yea because it was a very confusing question. I've never seen a millionaire question be so ridiculous before.
1 like@Mark Sommers
2 likesDo you think it would have been better phrased as "which of these numbers is a member of a pythagorian triple?"
@IamGrimalkin No, perhaps not asking that stupid question at all would've been better. Imagine trying to use a phone a friend for that question? It'd be pretty much no use with just 30 seconds to read it and then give the answers. You'd need to read that question twice at least. And the ask the audience was useless too, of course.
2 likes@Mark Sommers
5 likesThe question is only hard to understand or process if you don't know what a pythagorean triple is.
Watching this, I had a pretty good idea what the answer would be before they even read "25" out; because 3/4/5 is the smallest and by far the most well-known pythagorean triple.
@IamGrimalkin Good for you? I don't use this word often but you sound like such a cringey boomer.
0 likes@GGian_ 4*4 is multiplication not addition. Sum is addition...
0 likes💯 thought the same thing, I kept looking at 16 and thinking that 4 is also a perfect square but 4+4 doesn’t equal 16… I might’ve just guessed that one too tho since it sounded the best. It wasn’t until I paused the video and thought about it without distractions that I interpreted the question right and remembered that 3^2 + 4^2= 5^2 like when using the Pythagorean theorem
0 likes@GGian_ hhh
0 likes@IamGrimalkin You don´t even need the pythagorean triple triple. You just need to know what a square number is.
6 likes@bowlchamps37
1 likeWell that's helpful, but it doesn't make the answer leap out at you.
If he knows the pythagorean formula then he would know it :|
1 likeIf you know, you immediately see Pythagorean triangle 3, 4, 5 or 9, 16, 25
2 likesYou're all college weak too
0 likesSame lol trick question
1 likeThis is literally just the 3-4-5 triangle. For anyone that even finished something like 10th grade it really shouldn't take any computation at all to get the answer. If you didn't see the answer right away you probably didn't do so well on the SAT math test.
5 likesFor people that misunderstood the question and said it was poorly worded, it is not. Most people in this country are bad at word problems, and you are probably one of them. I've seen enough students to know that by now.
Exactly it’s poorly framed and I had to take a second and analyze what exactly it called for
1 likeThat would be impossible. A^2=2B^2 is impossible to solve for A if A and B are integers greater than 0 because A/B=sqrt(2) whereas sqrt(2) is irrational.
0 likesYeah same, kind of sad to think about how many people would get this question wrong just from misinterpreting it
4 likesExactly, same here
0 likesi somehow didn't overthink this..
0 likesrandomly chose b, checks in my head: 16+9=6+9+10 6+9=15
25 and 15 both end with 5
If 2X^2 = Y, X and Y cannot both be integers. You can see this if you draw an isosceles, right-angled triangle where the two identical sides have length 1. Since the hypotenuse is sqrt(2), it is impossible to make it an integer without making the two identical sides a surd.
0 likes@Beacon Blaster Bruh that math don’t mean crap lol
0 likes@Geology051 well we clearly have different dialects
0 likesI read "smaller" as "similar". So i can't even read too😂😂
0 likesYou weren't overthinking it, what you thought makes absolutely no sense
2 likesAlexandre trying to make overthinking a eufemism for being stupid or lacking concentration in the moment
America is not the world though..
1 like@IamGrimalkin ,
0 likesNumber leapt out at me instantly...
To be fair, it was a badly worded question
1 likeIt is these types of logical reasoning that I fail... I literally can't understand what these math words really say. I feel really bad
2 likesI did the exact same thing... I thought it was A.
0 likes@NoumenalSoup there's multiple interpretations to this question. For you to not realize this is quite hypocritical
1 likeYea I was thinking.. well for it to be the sum of that square number the two numbers have to be the square root of one the numbers and the only square root of the square number that is still a square number was 4 (square root of 16).. 4 x 4 is 16
0 likesI had to read 15 comments to understand the question
0 likesI thought the same thing
0 likesSmaller square number had to be the same? What kind of situation are you talking about? My god I can’t imagine what it is like to live in your world.
0 likesI don't get how people are saying the question is confusing. It's perfectly straightforward. You need to know what a square number is (a=n×n) but they give you a list of 4 square numbers to remind you what it means, 4x4=16,5×5=25,6×6=36,7×7=49. You need to know that sum means add. Even if you forgot that from school it's a very common thing in spreadsheets if you want the total of a column the formula says SUM(). So if you know those 2 things then the question says which of these numbers is the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, so that means the answer is the one where you can add 2 of the numbers in the square number list together and it equals the answer. The only smaller square numbers than the ones listed are 1,4 and 9. So you take the list 1,4,9,16,25,36 and try to add combinations of them together to get the result of 16,25,36,49. 4+1=5, 9+1=10, 9+4=13, 16+1=17, 16+4=20, 16+9=25 bingo! So starting from the bottom you have to do 6 sums to find the answer but they are very easy sums. If you think about it a little more you would realise that none of the square numbers are consecutive numbers so therefore you would never have A+1=B so you can drop 1 from the list to consider. Then you only need to do 3 sums to find the answer!
3 likesTrue, the question doesn't explicitly state they have to be 2 different numbers that you are adding together, but it certainly doesn't imply they have to be the same! But what if you thought that the same number added to itself was a candidate? Well any number added to itself must give an even result. The only even numbers in the list are 16 and 36. Half of 16 is 8 (not square), half of 36 is 18 (not square). So it's pretty easy to eliminate those possibilities even if your mind did go down that path.
Personally I worked it out the other way around. I started with the answers and tried to find numbers that would add up to it. I didn't even get as far as considering 1 and just thought about 4, 9, 16 and 25. 36-25=11 (not square), 25-16=9 square! So 25 is the answer.
@Prinz Jakob 2^2=4
0 likes4^2=16
Yeah it didn’t have the best wording
0 likesHow tf can you even thino of that
0 likes@Prinz Jakob idk what he thought, but the wording was confusing
0 likesI did the same mistake and first, then realized the numbers could be different.
0 likesRuled out 49 at the beginning for that very reason
@Aleksa Petrović Youmadbro?
0 likesI thought it was
0 likes16 -> 4*4 -> 2*2*2*2
Like… I assumed it was saying what square can be broken down into another square twice. 16->4^2->2^4. For the record, it is my bend time, lol.
25 -> 5^2
16->4^2->2^4
36->6^2
49->7^2
None of them can reduce like 16 can, from 4 to 2. 25 -> 3^2 + 4^2… unless you memorized that, I really don’t get how you’d just know that tbh. Like, I know how square numbers work, but in school I was never taught about adding them like that to my memory. I recall multiplying them and diving them though. If they said, what two numbers squared equal 25, then I’d get it though.
@Ninjaslash52 where is that in the question? Why it has to be different square numbers?
0 likes@Houdini bingo!! Thats it! 🤣
0 likesThanks!
are you guys dumb stupid or dumb
0 likesI had the same situation, but probably 'cause i'm watching it so late xD
0 likesOr literally just read the fucking question instead of doing whatever the fuck you did.
0 likes2² is not 2 + 2 its 2 x 2 tho the answer is correct the approach is incorrect, mate.
1 likeMy thoughts too lmao
0 likesThat audience was selected by his ex ! Bwahahaha
0 likesYeah same, took me at least 60 secs to get the right answer.
0 likesMathematically impossible. If a² = b² + b², that means a = b.sqrt2, which is not even a rational number (as long as a and b are integers, and as long as i'm not a doofus)
0 likesMEEE TOOOOO, TOOK ME FOREVER. Since I was like, hold up non of these make sense
0 likesI thought the same exact thing, I would have definitely gotten this wrong unless I got a lucky guess. Having the question be more specific could have meant he got the right answer
0 likesthat's why the question was put in exactly this way. I think most people who brag about how easily it is would've failed in that situation or can only answer is because they memorized it from school.
0 likesNot the whole world
0 likesI literally couldn’t figure out this question (I paused the video so I could figure out the answer) and thank you so much for your comment. I thought it had to be the sum of the same number as well
0 likes@Falk Flak Well, most of the show is about remembering a bunch of stuff you memorized earlier. In that regard, math questions are basically free passes, since you hardly have to remember anything apart from some elementary math terms. The rest, you just have to calculate. You have the time to do it.
1 likeAlso, the question was put in a pretty straightforward way. Failing to comprehend written text is not the question's fault.
you have to factor in the stress of being on television and watched by millions of people.
0 likesWell atleast you're honest unlike most dolts here
0 likesTwice the same square can never be a square, this is the basis for the famous proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number.
0 likesthat is not overthinking, that is misinterpreting
0 likesFun fact, 2 of the same is mathematically impossible. If it was then sqrt(2) must be an integer which it isn't
0 likesSame bruh
0 likesi disagree, if u are competing in something like this idc how nervous u are making sure u understand the question should be one of the top priorities
0 likesIt's a confusing question. It reminds of that genius game or whatever that has convoluted problem solving baked into it. This at least has a rational to it, that other game (can't even think of the name) has got to be one of the dumbest games I've ever seen, that tries to be smart.
0 likesI don’t think this is overthinking at all, just a very poorly worded question. Somehow at least two or three similarly poorly worded Qs make it onto every scholastic entrance exam there is!
0 likesIt's the smallest pithagorian triple and it's one of the first examples you see in junior school when learning the Pythagorean theorem. Should be considered basic knowledge.
0 likes@UltraBall333 Omg I did the exact same thing lol these things used to cause me to fail tests lol!
0 likesStill not good reasoning cuz 2^2 + 2^2 ≠ 16
0 likesIt's a pretty straightforward question if you know what "square" and "sum" mean
I thought why isn't it right 16 is 4² and 4 is sum of 2 and 2
0 likesI was thinking the same as you, then got confused cause all the answers seemed plausible with how I read the question....
0 likesThat was my first thought, then I thought more and figured it out. I think this more a case of "underthinking" or maybe "tunnelthinking?" 😅
0 likesNot gonna lie I am pretty bad at basic math so oh course I wrote it down possible basic roots and added them. I figure they meant two different root numbers not just the sun of two. I still got it right even though I’m bad at adding things or multiplying them in my head. Written out I might figure it out.
0 likesLmao, the audience trolled him.
0 likesHe heard “this is for 16,000” and thought “oh so it’s 16”
0 likes3,4,5 is a right angled triangle which follows Pythagoras them, by this trick, with fraction of seconds I came up with answer 🇮🇳🚩
3 likesHe should've used his phone joker to call Pythagoras.
0 likesWow! I can't believe most people got that wrong. 3² + 4² = 5² has got to be the most common equation used when teaching the Pythagorean theorem in school. I think a lot of the people who answered 16 just weren't paying close enough attention to the phrasing of the question and thought 4 and 4 were the two numbers referred to.
1003 likesReplies (66)
Yep. 5 is a common hypotenuse length.
61 likes@StaticBlaster incorrect
2 likes@ohareshairs Nope. I clearly remember in my math classes: trig, pre-calculus, and calculus, 3-4-5 triangles were common.
73 likes@StaticBlaster it's is not a common hypotenuse length you mean 5 is a common hypotenuse length
9 likes@StaticBlaster yeah if the triangle is 3,4,5 hypotenuse is 5 not 25
13 likes@unkown user yes that's what I meant.
9 likesMan do you think anyone remembers what they were taught in school? Lol
32 likesUnfortunately a few people don’t know how to READ, THINK, or understand DEFINITIONS: i.e. sum of two smaller square numbers.
16 likes*A square number is an (non-negative) integer that is the square of an integer* — this rules out all complex or non-integer numbers.
There is also a special case of 0^2 being one of the two terms but that fails the stipulation “sum of two smaller square numbers” since the other term of the two square numbers is not smaller then the initial square number.
Examples:
A) i) 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2 no, since left 4^2 is not smaller then right 4^2
A) ii) i^2 + (sqrt(17))^2 = 4^2 no, sqrt(17) > 4, plus sqrt(17) is not an integer
A) iii) (sqrt(-2))^2 + (sqrt(18))^2 = 4^2 No
B) i) 0^2 + 5^2 = 5^2 no
B) ii) 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 yes
B) iii) (-3)^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 yes
B) iv) 3^2 + (-4)^2 = 5^2 yes
B) v) (-3)^2 + (-4)^2 = 5^2 yes
B) vi) 3^2 + 4^2 = (-5)^2 yes
B) vii) (-3)^2 + 4^2 = (-5)^2 yes
B) viii) 3^2 + (-4)^2 = (-5)^2 yes
B) ix) (-3)^2 + (-4)^2 = (-5)^2 yes
B) vi) i^2 + (sqrt(26))^2 = 5^2 no
C) i) 0^2 + 6^2 = 6^2 no
C) ii) i^2 + (sqrt(37))^2 = 6^2 no
D) i) 0^2 + 7^2 = 7^2 no
D) ii) i^2 + (sqrt(50))^2 = 7^2 no
@Michael Pohoreski yep. It's self-explanatory.
11 likes@Michael Pohoreski don't worry about "two smaller square numbers", it can just be deduced that 0^2 is not allowed or else all answers would be correct. and, that phrase isn't clear. all it specifies is that the numbers used are smaller than the number it makes up, which, is obvious. besides, a general knowledge game show like this one wouldn't use 0^2 or negative squares, so the only numbers to consider are 1^2 through to 7^2, giving you 21 possible number pairs. 1^2 can be easily dismissed, as can 7^2. This leaves you with only 10 possible pairs to go through, and if you go upwards from 2^2 you'll get it by the 6th pair, which is 3^2+4^2.
8 likesThough in a stressful game show, you won't think of this that easily. you won't be aware of the number of possible combinations (it's inefficient to try and work out and it's unrelated), and you will be thinking of numbers that seem the most appropriate, rather than trying to brute force.
besides, try coming up with that comment in front of a live audience with $15k on the line being recorded on TV for millions to see.
I know how to answer this question, but I attempted to answer it without pausing at first. It was too much pressure and my mind blanked after I remembered pythag theorem and I couldn't discern any of the numbers in my head. But i'm pretty sure i know how to read and think, thank you.
@demon in denim Yes, it is pretty trivial to reject 0².
1 likeThe point is that it isn't THAT hard of a problem when you only need to check 2² ... 7², especially that most people (I hope) learnt the common Pythagorean triple 3² + 4² = 5² in elementary school as Jeremy mentioned.
Maybe in your school but in mine 3-4-5 was barely mentioned
9 likes@Michael Pohoreski yeah, when it comes down to it the question is really simple. also i checked again and you actually get the answer by the 5th pair rather than the 6th.
2 likes@StaticBlaster don't worry bud, 25 is also a pretty common hypotenuse. In vectors 24x + 7y is such a standard question.
4 likes@demon in denim your logic is wrong its says sum of TWO smaller numbers than the answer if you add 0 to 16 (or any of the options ) the answer will be 16 and both of its constituent squares(0 and 16) are not smaller than it since one of them equals it.
3 likesfor American people 16>0 = TRUE but 16>16 = FALSE so 0^2 is out of the question since both conditions don't satisfy
@Mokshit Sati Yes, it was incorrect for me to include 7^2 as it is not a smaller number; but not 0^2. Per the question, 0^2 is allowed because it is smaller. Though after some simple logic, 0^2 is not allowed or else all questions would be correct.
1 likeApart from 7^2, my logic is correct; just cap at 6^2 instead, which skips the elimination of 7^2.
@demon in denim 0 cannot be included according to the question both the SQUARES(not their square roots) that are being ADDED should be smaller then the SUM itself. question says in X1 + X2 = S, only when S>X1 and S>X2
1 likeIn our case we take X1(any square between 1-7) and X2 = 0 , so X1+0=S => S=X1
Let's satisfy the conditions again
S > X1(False since they are equal) and S> X2 ( true since S>0)
Hope you understand. I took 10 min to make it if not ig you are not a math person
@Mokshit Sati These are just 2 different methods of deducing that 0^2 cannot be used. It can be used according to the question; but you can deduce it cannot actually be used using two methods.
1 likeOne of them is your method:
0 + a^2 = x, yet a<x, therefore 0^2 is impossible.
The other one is my method:
0 + a^2 = x, yet that yields x = {16, 25, 32, 48}, and only 1 value of x (one of the answers) can be satisfied, therefore 0^2 is impossible.
@Michael Pohoreski Elementary school... let's say 6th grade. So you learned this at 12. Someone who is 30 would have had 18 years in between learning that. And the older you are, the further away that information is. There is absolutely no way you can expect someone to remember everything from elementary school. Especially when there's so much to remember on a daily basis.
3 likes@Dani Tho It's too hard to remember 3, 4, 5 or to calculate 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2? No wonder most American kids are stupid at math.
0 likesBecause the pythagorean theorum is used in school and never again as an adult, so they forget.
4 likes@omega-snipe And how do you think calculators are made ?
0 likesBut yes I agree learning Math has it's own disadvantages because one of it's many products is the Internet which allows me to see a an utterly stupid comment of an ignorant person
Please explain
0 likesBro once you leave school and dont use any of this for years you forget
1 like3, 4, 5 problems are like the baseline to every Pythagoras problem. And not even that, you frequently get 3, 4, 5 type questions in vector problems and even trigonometry with the 37° and 53° questions. This is what happens when you don't pay attention in math class.
0 likesMany people would confuse the product and the sum.
0 likes@omega-snipe calculators won't help you much in the question they showed
1 likeWe used the pythagorean theorem for like a week in school so i dont think i would remember that
0 likes@omega-snipe oh I feel hurt now
0 likesMama look this guy BuLlIEd me
@omega-snipe How does this relate at all? If a calculator is the only thing needed for maths then we as a society would be probably way more advanced and wouldn't struggle with a lot of logical problems then.
0 likesHow are you surprised? The majority of people don't know the preamble or their constitutional rights, something we all learned in 8th grade. Yet, you're acting surprised that most people don't remember Pythagorean Theorem? Get off your high horse.
1 like4 and 4 are TWO NUMBERS (which happen to be equal to eachother).
0 likesThis guy was cheated and should havw sued the show.
@NekoMMD bruh It's basic sense which u will never forget in your whole life just like cycling...3²+4²=5²,
0 likes12²+5²=13² there's much more examples like this We used to solve this in 5th grade, now we are at college
that would be stupid, 4+4 is 8 not 16
0 likesIt's an American show. What do you expect lol
0 likes@NekoMMD yes, that’s why school exists
0 likes@Michael Pohoreski you remind me of the apple dude from Good Will Hunting lol
0 likes4² + 0² = 16
1 likeSo this is also correct right?
@StaticBlaster stop with all of that it's just a very lame maths question
0 likes@Biswajit Bhattacharjee • 15 Years ago stop with what? 3-4-5 triangles are common in math. Now what you need to do is get a life. I posted all that a month ago.
1 like@StaticBlaster what you're stating is kids maths. It's like teaching someone 1+3=4
1 like@Michael Pohoreski you left out rational and real numbers before you went on to complex. :)
0 likes@BELLIGERENT APJ Exercise left for the reader. /s =P
0 likes@Michael Pohoreski haha. I presume you are someone into math.
0 likesBesides as a reply to your original reply, we as viewers have the privilege of being able to read the question as many times, whenever we like. The audience however only just listened to the question once. The host should have read the question again with the options at least so that they could have had a better go at understanding the question or respecting the other options after finding the first option as a good in whatever logic they found right. I have the deepest sympathy for the person losing the 15k dollars as I have done greater blunders even on topics I have profound knowledge on because of human factors.
Anyways, should the reader get confused, real numbers are out of consideration coz we can always find two such numbers whose sum of squares equal to any perfect square or any number for that matter. So all options would be trivially correct.
Wow! I can't believe what a pompous dick you are!
0 likesOh wait, yes I can, this is the internet.
I answered 25 because 9 + 16 = 25 which is 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
0 likesThe most famous Pythagorean triple
0 likesOoooooh that's weird I thought it was adding the squares like adding 4+4 not 4²+4²
0 likes@Michael Pohoreski Jesus Christ this isn't a maths class
0 likes@NekoMMD yes
0 likesThe very vast majority of human poplua have no zero use for these equations so it's no surprise at all
0 likesyes 3,4,5 are all in a pythagorean triplet
0 likesOmg it’s Albert Einstein
1 likeI'm in 7th grade so-
0 likesYa and most people haven’t heard that since they were in highschool because it’s useless
1 likeI mean, let's just be honest: How many people use this kind of math in their day-to-day lives beyond school? You can't tell me with a straight face that the Pythagorean theorem is commonly used, let alone known by heart, by the average Joe. Knowledge that isn't frequently used tends to be lost over time.
1 like@Michael Pohoreski Depending on definition of smaller: 0^2 + (-k)^2 = k^2 will work for any k.
0 likesMost people are very dumb.
0 likesYeah the phrasing is important, i admit watching this it took me towards 16 too because Yeah i admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 and i have seen weird things on this shiw that seem like they should just be products but are treated in such a way
2 likesSchools don’t TEACH the Pythagorean theorem. They TELL it, but that’s not the same.
0 likesStop giving excuses to the audience … the question was clear as crystal
2 likesPeople forget math the second they graduate
0 likeswow you guys are all really stupid
1 like@Michael Pohoreski that is not correct. A square number is just the result of a number being multipled by it self. Hence square, like finding the area of a SQUARE that's got two equal lenghts.
0 likesa*a=a^2, hence a^2 is a square number
The definition you are providing is defining the "perfect squares"
Ngl i though it was talking about square roots
0 likesI think most people just don’t care about understanding much of anything and settling in at maybe 3rd grade math is all that matters.
0 likesI'm an effing 4th year Electrical Engineering student, and it took me like 5 minutes to understand and solve the problem, I do not blame the guy.
1 likeSeriously, it doesn't matter how 'smart' you are, there's gonna be gaps. It's uncommon, but sometimes I do have trouble understanding what a math problem is trying to describe.
Replies (4)
Yeah, I am about to become a 4th year engineering student myself, and I do sometimes find it a bit tricky to wrap my head around these kinds of questions;
1 likeit is almost like those phrases that use lots of negatives everywhere, kinda like "nobody was not absent when this video was not playing", so that you have to wade through that jungle of negative statements in order to interpret what it is saying.
This is an example of how an elementary math problem can trip up those who have studied advanced mathematics. My sister, an elementary school teacher, knows all kinds of basic facts that I've forgotten. She makes me feel dumb because, although I have a Master's Degree in Finance, she has a much broader knowledge than I do on general subjects, and she often reminds me of this because I can sometimes be an annoying know-it-all.
1 like@LaughingStock55 I am currently studying a course on Electromagnetic Field Theory, and that course seems to emphasise a "pragmatic" approach a lot;
1 likein other words, the teacher doesn't care about derivations that much, he just wants us to use the finished formulas for various problems.
Sure pal
1 like4th year civil eng here and took me 10 min to lightly understand the question and I realize it seems like a tricky one
As an A* A-level Maths student, this is hilarious 🤣
6 likesReplies (2)
You mean, by american standards. Which is similar to 1st grade in Europe.
1 like@MrZillas A-level is british
0 likesI'm surprised only 30% of the audience knew the answer
1 likeReplies (1)
err when you consider that the were guessing only 5% of them knew XD
0 likesFrom what I saw it was mainly the phrasing that got people more than anything.
1 likeI can hardly understand English, because I'm not native speaker. But this native guy can harder.
0 likesFor those impatient fellows, the answer is B. 25. The square numbers of 16 and 9 can be added to achieve this sum.
1087 likesReplies (45)
Ahh. I thought it had to be the same square number for the sum. I was wondering how any of them could be correct. But I'm the foolish one lol.
240 likesThe question is worded confusingly but mathematically correct.
234 likesa pythagorean triple a²+b²=c² where a b and c are all integers
36 likesThank you Captain Obvious
18 likesI wish anime girls were real
27 likes@Simple_City same here lol
5 likes1 squared to the other 3 answers works.
0 likesThe "sum" is determined by adding, the "product" means multiplying.
6 likes@Simple_City no square number is double another square number. This is a consequence of the fact that the square root of two is irrational.
17 likes@Nick Southam you meant x^2 = 2*(x^2) has no solution? But 0 is a solution
0 likes@nightdinosaur what I (incorrectly) meant was that x^2 = 2*y^2 has no solution in integers, which is a consequence of the square root of 2 being irrational.
7 likesYou are correct that I neglected to add “aside from the trivial solution x=y=0”.
@Nick Southam ah ok
1 like@Matt M What was confusing about it?
2 likesThank You. Atleast you know the answer instead of talking shit about others.
4 likes@Gamer That's not what the question was asking though. Although it seems similar to Pythagorean theorem. When add the square of two numbers and square root them you get the Pythagorean theorem. But this was asking two find two square numbers that added up to a square, 2^2 + 3^2 = 13.
1 like@Gamer how did you get the keyboard to have numbers on top of numbers like that
0 likes@Simple_City exactly my thoughts lol
0 likesStatement can be true for the other numbers tho... Right?
0 likesLol, thanks
0 likesI don't understand the question until you explain it 😂
Lol it was such a easy questions it is the first triangle of Pythagoras theorem which is done in maths in 6 th std
0 likesFelipe Gomes You obviously can't assume that. If I tell you that there are two people in the next room who are both shorter than you, do you think to yourself, "Well, if they are both shorter than me, then they must be the same height as each other"? Do you find it tricky to imagine two people of different heights who are both shorter than you?
5 likes@Matt M the question is SO CLEAR. *sum of smaller square numbers*. there is literally nothing ambiguous
6 likes@Michał Dmochowski which one
0 likesYea it took me abit to understand the question. But it took me about 30 seconds starting from 2*2, 3*3,4*4 then I got it.
0 likes@64BitMan In what world is 13 a square number?
5 likesWhat the question is asking is precisely the same as identifying a Pythagorean triple:
3² + 4² = 5²
9 + 16 = 25
No, 256 and 81 cannot be added together to achieve 25
0 likesNow the question makes sense. I was wondering how B could be the answer when its square root isn't a square number.
1 likeI still dont get it, most likely cuz its not my native language, by reading the question im thinking of like 2³+2³ so its 16 and i have no idea why 9 and 16 are square, like doesnt square mean ²?
0 likes@O0OMega 9 and 16 are both square numbers bc they can be obtained by multiplying two of the same numbers. 3*3=9 and 4*4=16. So the question was asking what two square numbers can be added together to get another square number and since 9 and 16 are square numbers and they add to 25, another square number then that is the answer. Hope that helps
1 like@O0OMega 9 is square because 9 = 3².
3 likesLikewise, 16 is square because 16 = 4².
2³ (2 cubed) has nothing to do with the question at all.
@Simple_City fr same
0 likes@64BitMan no, the question wasn't.
0 likesI definitely had to mumble the question aloud to myself before I understood what it was asking.
0 likesThanks for saving us from having to watch a video we clicked on to watch. 🙄 At least you got to show off your cleverness
0 likes@hellion75 then watch the video. Who instructed you to read comments 1st?
0 likes@Greg Giggie Wasn’t talking to you
0 likes@hellion75 you weren't "talking" to anybody. Point stands, you chose to go to the comments and spoil the video for yourself, don't blame someone else for your choice.
1 like@Greg Giggie Ah go fuck yourself. And happy new year
0 likes@hellion75 oh boy, now I know why you went to the comments so quick, the question was far too difficult for you, got it.
1 like@Greg Giggie Ok poindexter
0 likes@hellion75 So, you're arrested development started before 8th grade, when you should've been able to answer this question. Good to know.
0 likes@Greg Giggie *your
0 likesSame I assumed the two numbers had to be the same for some reason
0 likes@Gamer Yeah, Pythagorean theory is a great way to model this question. It can help prove that it works for 3² + 4² (to make 5²), 5² + 12² (to make 13²) and their multiples.
0 likese.g. 3² + 4² = 5² and its multiples:
6² + 8² = 10²
9² + 12² = 15²
etc.
5² + 12² = 13² and its multiples:
10² + 24² = 26²
15² + 36² = 39²
etc
I doubt answering this will ever get me £16,000, but these are the kind of things a maths nerd like me will happily do for fun lol
@Simple_City still doesn't make sense
0 likesI kept thinking the smaller squares needed to be the same and I was like this isn't a thing?
0 likesCan't help but think the old maxim of "explain your answer" would've helped him here. You can't answer a maths question on a hunch or what 50% of a random audience think.
1 likeI'm doing a Medical Physics course and I can't even answer this
0 likesI got it wrong. My brain automatically went to 4^2. This was a classic case of my struggles with word problems and reading Too fast. When I was in school they did not teach word problems well at all.
0 likesit took me a lot more time to understand the question itself
0 likesMan, the 3 4 5 triangle was ingrained in my brain since 7th Grade when my Math Teacher gave us a preview of High School Trigonometry.
43 likesReplies (4)
McCarney 420 That's what I thought of too.
0 likesMcCarney 420 What is the 3, 4, 5 triangle? Never heard of it before.
0 likesIt is a right triangle with one leg of length 3, the other leg of length 4, and a hypotenuse of length 5.
0 likesErik the God Eating Penguin ooo
0 likesAnd the audience applauding "what a good job we did" :D
0 likesThe mistake made by both him and the audience was apparently misreading it as something about a square number that's a square of a square. He should have reread the question and read it closely, then it would have been obvious that you're supposed to add together two square numbers. He would have figured it out within seconds.
0 likesit took me a lot more time to understand the question itself
0 likesEven not being a math student i did secure A in my calculus 1 still got that wrong(may be the question was not clear)
1 likeIt's sad when even the audience sucks at the question
0 likesAt this moment, Ryan lost faith in humanity
684 likesReplies (5)
This is the moment where Ryan became Heisenberg
16 likes@Fun Box what's heisenberg a place?
0 likes@rIVerseLive _K,D,M,Z_ it's a City in Germany but he said Heisenberg because Breaking Bad (Series) Reference
3 likes@Vihari krishnan uhm ok..
0 likesHe’s one of them
0 likesBro I knew the answer before even seeing the options. Literally just the most famous bit of trig; 3^2+4^2=5^2. 9+16=25. Classic Pythagoras
2 likesThe question could've included "two different square numbers'', based on the question as it is stated people make the assumption that it's referring to two identical square numbers, then there is no two numbers that satisfy those conditions, it's remarkable to me that people must've actually just guessed.
0 likesThe audience clapping after lmfaooooo 💀💀💀 that was intentional
0 likes9+16=25... This is the oldest trick in the book when it comes to learning squares and roots
1 likeI honestly didn't understand the question at first. I thought they were asking for the smallest square number.
0 likesOk I get why the guy in the hot seat would have trouble. If you are EXTREMELY nervous it can be hard to do even the simplest tasks that are more than pure memory. However the audience? Really? More than 70% of the American public can't do shit like 3*3 and 4*4???!!!!! You gotta be kidding me...
2218 likesReplies (61)
Max White i think it was that they didn't know what squared or sum meant as that could change your answer if you thought sum was multiply
27 likesDylan that is still bad. why do adults not know what square and sum means
184 likesI think the problem was the sort of question. It should be common knowledge but takes a while to figure out, and the audience had 10 seconds starting from when he called the lifeline.
31 likesMarinus Sommeling
5 likesfrankly these questions are harder for me than calculus.
Marinus Sommeling
4 likesnot really. Most problems are algebraic.
Max White you make it sound so simple but it's not
1 likeMax White they aren't good at word problems is a better way to put it.
4 likesTeddy brimblecombe yeah right absolutely.
0 likes+Dylan
25 likesI'm 99.999% certain that 99.999999999999% of the time, the word "sum" in mathematics does not mean "multiply".
Because you have to apply bayes' theorem and drop the nonsignificant digits you get 100.00% anyway... so why the hassle?
1 likeMax White it is so sad that the American audience didn't know the basic squares and square roots I'm in high school and figured it out no problem
3 likesRa'Maj yeah but ur Indian
1 likeBuddy Love First of all I'm not Indian secondly that's a sorry excuse, it is almost as if you said Americans are less intelligent than Indians oh wait you did
7 likesRa'Maj Chill bruh
0 likesBuddy Love man i am indian. But still like people should have known but then again there are housewives old men and all sorts of people in audience. Thats why maths is important. The person should have known about it.
1 likeI think you mean 3*2 and 4*2, at least get it correct when you're bashing a whole nation.
1 likeAryanna https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4*4%2B3*3
1 likeMax White Oh my bad, I mixed up ^ with *.
2 likesAryanna You are hereby forgiven. ;-)
2 likesRuthieal it took you 3-4 mins to solve that. That tells how good you are at math.
9 likesI don't get the guy, because it's not a quiz based on time. He could think about it calmly.
5 likeshow just how did he not know that. you learn that kinda thing in like third or fourth grade in India I mean that's such a popular pythogorean triplet
7 likeswasnt the public, it was orchestrated. All this shits fake dont believe what u watch on tv lol its just money making for em.
2 likesNA Education lul
2 likesWe got new computer touch screens at work a few years ago, at first they displayed military time... a coworker asked me how to tell military time.... told her for numbers over 12 just subtract 12...."ok it's 20:18, what time is that?" ... I asked "what is 20 minus 12?".... after looking around a bit she said "I don't know what is it"...........................
6 likes75ur15 Good story!
0 likesWatch some "Americans are dumb" interviews. Shit is sad af.
4 likesto be fair, the audience might not have been very intelligent since u didnt need an education back then but still could make a proper living. Now, we require education and most likely will not be able to find a decent job without one. also, education was complete crap back then and much easier.
0 likesMax White how do you know they're American? how do you know they're not Canadian? did you just assume their nationality?
1 likeJohn Kyon because it's an American show
4 likesJosh Myers that also airs in Canada
2 likesMax White they love to hear logical fallacies my friend the us people
0 likesThey had no reason to think about it. I'd bet most of them just thought "hah, math. I know 16's a square, I'll put that one down.'
1 likeMax White
1 likeThe audience had a time limit.. and didn't have the question in front of them. So it's perfectly understandable they got it wrong.
The contestant however had the question in front of him, had absolutely no time limit and could have taken all the time he needed to work out the answer, unless he was told otherwise before the recording.
Half of what you said would be right if the contestant had a time limit but he didn't.
+VR471
0 likesI don't watch the show, but I think they do have a time limit for the entire "game," and I don't know what happens when that limit runs out.
Ikr, it's sad enough that the guy himself couldn't get it but even more sad that half the audience couldn't either.
1 likeMax White You would only defend the audience if u found the question hard yourself. Anyone with high school education should know the answer within 10 seconds
0 likes+Sunroop Sandhu Yeah, they might even get that I didn't defend the audience...
0 likesThe first comment from Dylan kills me everytime
1 likenow you know why trump won, hahahahaha
4 likesThat pretty much sums it up
0 likesRa'Maj they're obviously tricking that guy
0 likesThat's America, the land of the free they said. And oh, the hamburgers...
2 likesWell, watch the European version of Millionaire and you'll be shocked at how easy the questions are. My mom badly wants to get on the European show because she said the questions are almost 3rd or 4th grade level! It's ridiculous. All she has to do it get up to the half million Euro question, back out and she still takes home 300,000 Euros, which is probably about $317,000.
1 likeWelcome to America! And people still wonder why we elected Trump. This should give you a clue.
9 likeslargol33t1 Canadians wouldn't know about that ;)
0 likesMax White ifkr! we have this show in my country too and audience poll till date have NEVER been wrong!
0 likesSunroop Sandhu ikr. I saw the thumbnail and I got it before clicking on it.
1 likeIf I were in the audience I would have picked the wrong answer too just to shame him. This kid is in fucking college; he should be able to do this in his sleep.
2 likesno im really good at maths but i felt the question wasnt too clear .. i kept thought they wanted 2 numbers that are the same and squared that sum up to one of the given answers
0 likesAgreed I was one team captain on a radio quiz when I was 16.... I won my place by being the no1 student in the school but when the tape started to roll I blanked and didnt even remember my team mates names as I was supposed to introduce them! I got 100% of the questions wrong. Fuck that was embarrassing !
0 likesHalf? Not only that more as you cant take only A but also C and D.
1 likeMax White wow... Bayes theorem... Really? Just go ahead and using fucking BPD as well just throw it in there
0 likesIf you said the squared as number multiplied as itself as I dont think we did anthing squared until 8th class imo.
0 likesMax White I learn that in primary high school. Not elementary school. I cant really blame them
0 likeslol yeah even with that amount of time u can get it just by elimination, this doesn't exactly roast the guy but the audience.
0 likesbananian Oh mate! Do you even know what ‘Calculus’ is ?
0 likesBʘʘmBang Because you can't find the solution doesn't mean it's hard
0 likesYet they know more about the Kardashians... smh
0 likes@Ruthieal yikes 3 minutes... im from Pakistan and dissapointed
0 likes@Marinus Sommeling bcs they dont care about math and more likely have forgotten wtf a square number or sum even means. its something you will only learn in math class, not in real life because not everyone is going to be an engineer/teacher/mathematician/programmer
1 likethe funny thing they clapped at their failure , what a confidence
1 likelesson i learnt : be sharp and mature enough to have faith trust & believe in yourself to get things right
0 likesReplies (1)
Unless you're the guy who went against the 90% audience and got it wrong.
0 likesThat's a good one. First answer that comes to mind is 16. But when you analyze it quickly you realize that 16 can't be that number....
0 likesJay Leno would have a field day with this audience. I can relate though, my brain switches off under pressure, I'd have a hard time reciting the alphabet under pressure.
0 likesQuestion had me thinking the smaller square numbers had to be the same value so I was mad confused
0 likesWhy is the audience applauding after screwing him up?
672 likesReplies (20)
To take some of the guilt out of their minds lol
69 likes😂😂😂😂😂
3 likesLolll
0 likesLol
1 likeRubbing salt to his wound
33 likesbecause ruining other people's chance to getting thousands is really fun
31 likescuz y not
0 likesSanat Mishra
0 likes😂😂😂😂😂😂
Because they butt head drama queens that love to see people fail.
2 likesThe Polymath 8th grade? I learned it in 3rd grade
0 likesIt looks like they were trying to sabotage him, and they were applauding themselves for succeeding.
4 likesBecause it's America. I've seen them cheer and whoop at traffic lights changing.
1 likeExactly...I mean...what kind of audience was that..!!!
1 liketylerdurden786 And also during plane landing
0 likesthey're pleased to see the back of him?
0 likesAudience were right actually...since 16= 4^2 +0^2
0 likes@Vikram Tete Did you happen to read the question mate. 2 SMALLER square numbers. 16 is not smaller than 16.
1 likeRemember Ken Basin. That's all I'll say.
0 likesCongratulations! Task failed successfully
0 likesBecause the APPLAUSE sign was on !
0 likesFirst I was trying to understand what it meant.
3 likesThen I thought it was asking to do 1^1+ 2^2+ 3^3 + 4^4 …
Totally misunderstood the question! Didn’t realize it was much easier than that😅
Just the squares! No cubing!
Replies (1)
uhm that's harder than Fermat's Last Theorem, which took over 400 years to solve
0 likesIf Pythagoras was here hed be crying 😢
0 likesSo even the audience is terrible in math. 😂
1 likeLiterally would've screamed at the audience
1 likePythagoras theorem coming in clutch.
0 likesThe man is the definition of "The risk was calculated, but man was I bad at math!"
230 likesReplies (1)
lmao
0 likesI wanna be honest: I'm really good at math and I got it wrong 🤦😂 for whatever reason I thought it was the product and not the sum and even before they showed the last answer my head went "it's 36, EZ" 🤣
0 likesReplies (1)
So if it is the product instead of sum, did you think it was (2*2)*(3*3)=36? That is, honestly, the only "acceptable" incorrect answer. A minor misreading happens to everyone. And you're watching a TV show, not doing your final exam.
0 likesthis is the deepest math question ive seen on any talk shows its usually like what is axb?
0 likesWell the question itself was very confusing. Its not about math, it’s about attention and logic
1 likedamn, the default numbers for any simple pythagoras theorem question..
0 likesThe question though is a trick question. Some people may have interpreted the question to mean "which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers" That could also mean well, (4^2) or (2^2) + (2^2)+(2^2)+(2^2) which is a summation of smaller squares that adds up to 16.
0 likesReplies (1)
4^2 equals the square number 16, but the question requires the answer to be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Clearly 4^2 is not a sum of two numbers.
0 likes2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 is the sum of four square numbers, not two.
The correct answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
Probably the same audience that thinks Africa is a country
2004 likesReplies (38)
Wait, it isn't?
83 likesAnonymous AJ nah it’s a state
86 likesSamadAhsanVlogs
20 likesYourBiggestFan XD
How high are you guys?? Lmao
It was proven to be no more than a country in 1896, when Uganda seceded from the World Union, otherwise known as the "NATO of yesterday."
Chumps. Get knowledge'd.
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania (or Australia, and no, I am not starting a flamewar over the name of this continent. That's stupid) and Antarctica.
4 likesBGaming Videos and that most of them think that America is a country lol
4 likesDrake Andrejas How can you not realize this is a joke
14 likesSamad Ahsan Goes for you as well.
3 likesElias Westeren I didn't laugh at it.
3 likesSamad Ahsan r/whooosh
1 likeDumbest things I've heard in my school (this is real)
23 likes-texas is a continent
- the earth is flat
-fortnite is a good game
England is a city, so why does it seem impossible for Africa to be a country? And statistically speaking, Africa is way larger than England, so it definitely is possible to become a country.
11 likesSugoi Joseph just need to check if you’re being serious or joking
1 likeBGaming Videos WAIT AFRICA IS NOT A COUNTRY?
0 likesIt was a Nick Crompton reference 😅
0 likesI thought it was a Town!
1 likeDrake Andrejas There's 15 continents.
0 likesBut does it rains there?
0 likesBGaming Videos africa is my city.
0 likesCommon Cool Channel congratulations you know ur continents which u fucking learn in like year 6...
1 likeAfrica is my hometown
1 likeOr that england is a city😂
0 likesAmericans
1 likeMaybe the same audience can't locate Iraq on a map.
1 likeMaybe the same audience can't name the Vice President.
0 likesEngland is my city 😂😂
0 likesAfrica is a planet.
1 like“It’s also a big CONTINENT if you’re a Geographer!”
0 likesBGaming Videos They also think that the earth is flat
0 likessouth africa is
0 likesAnd the same audience who thinks Asia is a country.
0 likesAnonymous AJ are you in that audience?
0 likes@Stefan Veenstra what?
1 likeI usually give em the benefit of the doubt that they are taking bout south africa witch is a country.
1 likeOh my god Ikr, and also probably the same people who think Asia "only" consists of china, Japan and Korea.
0 likesIts a city
0 likes@Sami Ahsan r/whooosh
0 likes@Anonymous AJ wait what that's illegal
0 likes@JoyBoink I'm afraid that as a basic-bitch redditor, I'm going to have to tell you that YOU'RE illegal.
1 likeOwned.
Most people who haven't learnt about Pythagorean Triples are going to get this wrong. I got it right simply because it's a basic Pythagorean Triple you solve when using Pythagoras' Theorem in high school. The question is basically asking you to first recognize that the sum of two squares giving another square is just a Pythagorean Triple, which is a fancy way of saying it's an example of Pythagoras Theorem applied to a concrete problem. And second, the problem is asking you to recall that 3 squared + 4 squared is 5 squared. Almost everyone in High School encounters this.
2 likesReplies (1)
I didn't know about Pythagorean Triples. I just know that the squares are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, and 49. Once you know that, it's easy. 9 from 16 doesn't leave a square, 25 or 16 from 36 don't leave a square,and neither do 36 or 25 from 49.
0 likesIt's quite strange. I see that he has a blockade. But on the other hand he's got a lot of time to reset himself. If he at least examined the first number. Only the first one.
0 likesDoing so his chances by guessing would already end up at 1/3.
It took me a while before I figured it out, I didn't really understand the question... didn't understand what they were asking but maybe that is because English is not my first language.
0 likesHow did everyone get to their answer?
0 likesI found the difference between the answers and saw if if it was a square number too. Luckily the very first one was 25-16=9 which is also a square number
I understood the question. And tried various combinations for each of the numbers. Didn't think of 4*4 and 3*3 for 25.
0 likesIt's a pretty fricken hard question for $15,000.
Should be more like $200,000.
The audience proves it.
Replies (1)
I got it rigjt away
0 likesThis guy is me. Life gives me the wrong answer, then starts clapping when I go with it and it turns out to be wrong.
180 likesReplies (3)
This comment is a meme hahaha
2 likesIt wasn't life that gave the wrong answer though, it was the audience. Unless life IS an audience..... I wouldn't be surprised to find I'm the focus of a Truman-show like situation.
2 likesi mean he is also just as dumb for not coming up answer for that simple question .
0 likesI wish I’d been in that, the answer is so easy.
0 likesYou technically could make the argument that it's all of the above because they said "numbers", not "nonzero numbers" so you could just take the square root and add 0^2.
1 likeReplies (1)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
4 likesI know someone who graduated high school and still can't count change.
0 likesThe actual question is, which of these numbers will be the answer for the two smaller square numbers when they are added together.
2 likesReplies (1)
same thing as what was asked
0 likesReal anger is visible when you tag this video to Numberphile
0 likesEasy way to figure this out.
136 likes49 is the max number you can choose from, therefore, your number range is between 1-7 (since 7x7 =49)
So the numbers you can to choose from are:
1x1=1
2x2=4
3x3=9
4x4=16
5x5=25
6x6=36
7x7=49
Now take all those answers and randomly add them two together and see if one of the multiple choice answers appear.
4+9=13 (not a choice)
1+9=10 (not a choice)
36+9=45(not a choice)
9+16=25(ding ding ding, u ar winrar. Pass go and collect your £200, or in this case, do not pass go, go to jail and lose our on $15K. BlameTheAudience).
It's not badly worded at all. You just need to break it down and see what it's asking.
Replies (29)
I just kept plugging in numbers :P
1 like+Famfly there is only 49 sums, actually
0 likes+mariotaz 4+9=15?
0 likesBitFlip32 Whoa. Corrected. ha
0 likes+mariotaz He doesn't have a paper and he's under pressure. One can easily think it's 16 if you take the product of 2^2 but they asked for a sum. Nonetheless, if most people were about to lose 15k, they would be distracted.
9 likesUnforsakenXII True but you are given time to think about it. Pretty sure there isn't a time limit to answer a question on this show.
1 like***** Not to sound rude but just a tip: If someone replies with a comment that doesn't make sense, it's possible that the original poster may have edited their comment (which is the case here).
2 likesHe had 4+9=15 in his comment originally, but changed it to 4+9=13.
+mariotaz winrar? Stop pirating.
0 likesDen John Wait what?
1 likemariotaz u ar winrar
1 like+mariotaz You don't even need to break it down. If you're smart you can spot fairly quickly that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
3 likes+mariotaz Hey.
1 like+mariotaz EASY way ?
0 likesJohnny Williams Eh
0 likes+mariotaz Hey, It is far too easy not to break it down at all! .. it is the supreme Pythagoras right-angled triangle whose sides are 5, 4 and 3 >>> 25 = 16 + 9
2 likestassoma007 Oh I see! Nice.
0 likes+mariotaz Notice you used 9 on every single one
0 likes+mariotaz 66 lieks ilerminarte
1 like+Alexander Donets You are correct, but there are only 1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28 unique sums. For example, 16 + 36 and 36 + 16 are effectively the same sum.
2 likesAnd using the OP's logic, we can actually eliminate 7^2 as an addend, because the two addends need to be smaller than the sum. Thus there are actually only 1+2+3+4+5+6=21 unique sums.
Binyamin Friedman My man!
0 likes+Cesar Pilot You are too young for that stuff.
0 likesTranslation:
0 likes"I have a small wiener, so here is math for you."
@Keen 7: YouTube Is Toast True. Small wiener
0 likes@mariotaz Wow you are still replying after 6 years. Btw you have written winrar instead of winner, correct it.
0 likes@Aditya Singh I have videos on my channel that are 15 years old that I still reply to. I reply to everything. Also, the "u ar winrar" is a reference to the old "A winrar is u" meme. That was intentional.
0 likes@mariotaz Oh ok
1 likewow totally easy, i wonder if a normal person could think like this with time pressure in front of the public
0 likes@lx Probably not.
0 likesThe question does not specify integer squares, so every answer is a solution.
0 likesto be fair, 16 is a great trick . I am assuming his instinct was 8+8 = 16, and then he overlooked that 2^2 is only 4 and not 8? My eye went to 16 as well , but then when I saw the audience choosing b and c i was like... oh yeah I am not using my brain. This show was great when i was a little kid, why haven't they brought it back?
0 likesThe 3,4,5 triangle is one of my favourite shapes.
0 likesI did not understand the question. I was stumped at that point. As for me working out the right answer..no chance. Maths not my forte. 🤣🤣🤣
0 likesIf you don't know about the Egyptian Triangle this question is pretty difficult to solve with limited time under stress.
0 likesOmg the audience trolled so hard
0 likesI was thoroughly mind-boggled as to how 16 was the wrong answer, until I realised that it was the SUM of two square numbers you have to work out, not the product by multiplication. Perhaps that's what tripped a lot of people up?
842 likesReplies (88)
Heisenburger 4? 1+1+1+1+1x would equal 4+x which would be 4+0 in this case.
120 likesHeisenburger 0? anything multiplied by 0 = 0 and the multiplication comes first right, but even if it didn't, should still be 0.
7 likesThis is definitely what I thought at first too
44 likesHeisenburger 4 right?
11 likes@Ceares What? It becomes 4+0 after multiplication. How should the result be 0?
108 likes@Ceares big brain time
57 likesHeisenburger 4 lol
3 likes@Ceares bodmas rule basically
8 likesYeah. 2^2=4 and 2^2=4 so I assumed 4^2=16
37 likesHeisenburger 4
0 likes@axeblue That’s exactly how I understood the question...
26 likes@The Real Zizmon "That’s exactly how I misunderstood the question..."
59 likesFixed that for you.
@Grizzly01 No, the way I used "understood" was correct, as the context was negative in nature.
47 likesMaybe stop trying to be such a smartass on the internet and people might just like you more.
@The Real Zizmon No, you misunderstood the question.
15 likesMaybe stop being such a moron on the internet, and people might not call you out on it. They still won't like you, though.
I first thought they meant the sum of two EQUAL square numbers, like a+a not a+b
15 likesAre you saying half the audience can’t read?
12 likes@Ceares the problem would have to be (1+1+1+1+1)x0 to be zero. You are correct that anything times zero is zero, but you have to remember the order of operations (PEMDAS as many learn it). So if we multiply first we go from 1+1+1+1+1×0 to 1+1+1+1+0=4. Basically the multiplication only applies to what it's touching unless there are parenthesis
16 likesWell, yeah, it did say “sum” and not “product”, so I am curious as to why people would think that?
16 likesHeisenburger A better question for something like that is 8 / 2(3+1). A lot of the time it trips people up as they think working out the brackets in BODMAS means multiplying by the number on the outside. Therefore they work out 8/ (2x4) = 8 / 8 = 1, whereas the correct answer is 8 / 2(3+1) = 8 / 2(4) = (8/2) x 4 = 4 x 4 = 16.
5 likesEdit: after reading other replies it seems this isn't a problem with misunderstanding but more a problem with people being taught different stuff such as multiplication by juxtaposition priority.
@awesomeleozejia yes
0 likesHeisenburger 4?
0 likesThat’s exactly the mistake I made
0 likes@Ceares
5 likesIf I was facing the question, I would not like you to submit the audience poll response.
Heisenburger I think the difference comes with the fact that your question relies on people not knowing any BODMAS whereas the other question relies on people getting confused when trying to implement BODMAS and messing up because of it. I think it makes a lot of sense for people to confuse expanding out the brackets as part of the bracket portion of BODMAS when in actuality it counts towards the multiplication bit of BODMAS.
0 likes@Thalweg About your 8/2(3+1) example: that's not "working out brackets and multiplying them by the number outside" , that's multiplication by juxtaposition, which is valued higher that multiplication/division, and in which 2(3+1) therefore goes before 8 being divided by anything.
4 likesSo, you've basically written a giant fraction where 8 is a numerator, and 2(3+1) is a denominator. Thus, 8 divided by 2(4) = 1.
16 is a consequence of all systems like "BODMAS", "PEMDAS", etc., which are flawed and cursed - let them burn.
after researching I've found some mixed ideas about multiplication by juxtaposition priority. A lot of people are supporting the purple maths websites but a lot of people are arguing against it saying there's no such thing. I guess we'll never properly know whether a/bc = (a/b)c or a/(bc) but I think the moral of the story is that the question is badly written out and you should always use brackets to avoid ambiguity or you should just write everything as a fraction. I just took the question from on old question that went around the internet in 2019 and it completely split the internet (however I misremembered it as it was actually 8/2(2+2)).
0 likesWell, I stick to juxtaposition ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3 likesIf I wanted to say that I divide 8 by 2 and then multiply by 4, I'd just write 8(4)/2, which is basically the same, because in such system a/bc is the same as ac/b.
@axeblue i mean the question literally has the word sum which means addition so there's gotta be some sort of addition in there
2 likes@Grizzly01 no thats how he understood it works, words can have different meanings in different context and in this context understood means how he interpreted it not if he knows what it means so if you are gonna correct someone at the very least make sure they are actually wrong
3 likes@K1llsh0t The word 'sum' can be interpreted as the meaning answer. So, It's rather a trick question; the 'sum' or 'answer' of two smaller square numbers 4 and 4. And, because the sum or answer of 4^2 happens to produce a square number of 16, it causes the confusion. But yeah, I too realize some ppl solely see the word 'sum' as 'addition'
0 likesBesides, the sum of 4+4+4+4 equals 16. And there are at least two smaller square numbers.
@axeblue i personally don't see how it could ever be seen another way but people think differently i guess
3 likes@K1llsh0t The question should have been: Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two 'separate' smaller square numbers? It's visible that who wants to be a millionaire takes advantage of word usage.
5 likes@K1llsh0t they were wrong. That’s why I corrected them…
0 likes@axeblue that’s because ‘sum’ does solely mean ‘addition’.
6 likesIt is not a synonym of ‘answer’.
@Grizzly01 All of these words are synonyms to the word 'sum' : amount, bulk, quantity, value, worth, aggregate, body, entirety, entity, epitome, gross, integral, mass, reckoning, sum total, resume, all, works, whole, totality, tally, system, synopsis, summation, summary, structure, score.
2 likesWhat, you mean not reading the question?
1 like@axeblue In mathematics, only one of those example would be valid. I'll let you decide which one.
4 likesBut nice try, though.
Its definitely because people forgot that you could have DIFFERENT square numbers.
1 likeThey assume oh yes it must 16 because the square root is 4, and the root of that is 2
Even though things like this make no real sense, trust in the audience to follow silly logic like this just cos its the first thing they tried
@Grizzly01 the word 'tally'?
0 likesHow would that trip people up when the question literally uses the word SUM?
9 likes@Jonassoe I think some people may have misread it, and maybe some forgot that sum means addition only
1 likeHad the question stated “the sum of two DIFFERENT squared numbers” there would be no issues.
1 likeThat's not what happened, they just didn't know. If they were multiplying two square numbers, more people would have picked 36 seeing as 9 and 4 are both square numbers and multiplying them equals 36
7 likes@Ceares Huh? Dude, the multiplication comes first and cancels out the last 1. There are still 4 '1's there. The answer is 4.
0 likes@axeblue yeah that's also how i understood the question, and i really can't understand it any other way. to be fair i also don't speak english as a native language and have never studied math in english, so that might be why. mind explaining why it's 25?
1 like@Thalweg actually, both answers are correct. math is supposed to be universal but in reality there are loopholes and differences between countries. the answer for the problem depends on where you and your country place multiplication by juxtaposition (implied multiplication) in the order of operations. so it really depends, and many mathematicians disagree on it. also i remember hearing that one of the techniques used to be generally more acceptable, but now the other one is used more, but i can't remember which one was which. i'd imagine the one that places implied multiplication higher (the one with 1 as the answer) would be the older technique, but i'm really not sure.
0 likespersonally i prefer to place implied multiplication the highest so if i had to choose i'd say that 1 is the "correct" answer, but 16 definitely isn't incorrect either.
anyways, the real problem is the way the question is formed. it's ambiguous on purpose.
@Defianto oh my god the mere fact that you understand multiplication by juxtaposition makes me incredibly attracted to you, i've had one too many arguments with dumbasses who think the only correct answer is 1
3 likes@changedmynamebcyallwouldntstopmakingpunsaboutit Ahem, I'm sorry to interfere where I'm not supposed to, but, clarifying your response to @Thalweg:
0 likesIf you say that you value juxtaposition higher, than you first multiply 2 by (3+1) and get 8, and then divide 8 by it and get 1.
You, on the other hand, say that 16 is the answer in such situation. But you only get 16 if you stick to "from left to right" principle and first do 8/2=4, and then 4×(3+1)=16. With implied multiplication
Or am I confusing something? ._.
@Defianto naaahhh that's mad embarrassing considering the fact that i just replied to you like that acting like i knew better and now it seems like i don't know what i'm talking about lol, i promise i do 😅
0 likesanyways yeah i said it wrong because i didn't bother to calculate the answer again since i've done it a million times before and researched the issue and argued about this a while back (the problem went viral in like 2019), so i thought i remembered the answer correctly and i knew i was right about the logic behind it so i didn't calculate it again or even think it through. i'm also high as fuck so that might be a factor too
Oh, ok, it's no big deal. Everyone has had their wires crossed like that sometimes X)
0 likesBy the way, answering to your question about the video: the host meant that one of the numbers is a sum of two squares, and it's 25 'cause 25=16+9: 5²=4²+3²
@Defianto ohh i think i get it now, thank you!!
0 likes@eon star yeah I forgot about that
0 likes@changedmynamebcyallwouldntstopmakingpunsaboutit I had a similar conversation with the other dude and we came to the same conclusion that it's a problem with the question being purposefully ambiguous. At the time, I'd never heard of multiplication by juxtaposition priority and after doing more research I found out that some people used it and some people didn't. I have edited the comment to reflect the new info.
0 likesWhat tripped people up is that this show is normally about trivial questions, whereas math skills are actually important.
0 likesIt's important to read the questions very carefully.
2 likesThe easiest way was to just subtract numbers and see if it gives you a square, so you have 16, 25, do 25 - 16 = 9, oh bingo, can do 36 - 25 = 11, not a square, and 49 - 36 = 13, not a square.
Me too. Or me two?
0 likesHeisenburger 4 if i am right
0 likes@Ceares its 4 bud
0 likes@Esoptron nope. It is 4×0=0
0 likes@Ceares order of operations
0 likesYep it got me that way as well
0 likesHeisenburger in leau of BODMAS, it should be 4. But by LR method, it is 0.
0 likesHeisenburger stfu
0 likesU can only abuse pemdas and bodmas
Get a better life
Using Heisenberg as name doesn't make u a legendary scientist who lead to quantum atomic model
Heisenburger 🤣🤣
0 likesYou are some 7-8 years behind for your statement to be true
@Ceares No, 4.
0 likesyou could add parenthesis to the multiplication to make it easier
@Ceares That's not how it works, you always solve multiplication/division first, which results in 0 in this case. Then you solve the rest, resulting in 4+0, which equals to 4.
0 likes@C. J. K. Still doesn't work, mind you. The said square "a" would have to be 8 for the answer to be 16. As you know 8 is not a square
0 likes@Thalweg Usually we don't write division with '/' on paper to avoid this kind of confusion. Even on a computer, you'd rather write : and then it makes a lot more sense. By definition '/' is just a simplified fraction bar, which makes it really relevant that people would interpret what comes after as the denominator. In your example the problem is poor algebraic formulation rather than priority rule. The proper way to write it would be 8*(3+1)/2 and now there's no confusion possible anymore
1 likeSame here 🙋
0 likes@Thalweg a/bc is ambiguous as text, because it's not clear if the c is supposed to be "under" the division line. It's also not a valid way of writing it for calculators or (most) coding languages.
0 likes@axeblue Synonyms don't necessarily mean the same thing in a given context.
1 likeAnd the only context that makes sense here for "sum" is:
"the total amount resulting from the addition of two or more numbers, amounts, or items"
@TheFinalChapters the word ''Tally'' still applies. We have the advantage of watching this in the future so it's easy to make fun of. Knowing the pressure of contenders today, It's obviously apparent he was struggling w/ the meaning of sum, thinking it wasn't 'addition' as you say.
0 likes@axeblue That's not where the struggle came from.
0 likesThe problem was that in the moment, he likely was just trying to add numbers together to make a square, and struggling to remember which numbers were squares to begin with.
The audience largely went with A because they saw the 16 and thought "yeah, sure, just add 4 and 4 to get it". Not realizing combining 4 and 4 to get 16 would be multiplication, not addition.
People are bad at math, especially when they use their gut instincts.
@Ceares 4 is the answer
0 likes@Ceares You're adding before you multiply, it's 4
0 likesExactly
0 likesYeah I guess if they can't read. Maybe the average person can't read?
0 likesAny positive square of a composite is always a product of 2 smaller squares. Then 16, 36 would both be right which is ambiguous.
0 likes@Ceares order of operations dictates that the 1x0 should be calculated first, which gives us a 0 and a 1+1+1+1. and i hope you know that 0+1+1+1+1 is 4 or did you forget your kindergarten math class?
0 likes{not a condescending comment, just a joke. (the last part)}.
@Ceares or here’s a simpler explanation:
0 likes1+1+1+1+1x0
=1+1+1+1+0 (use only the last 1 to multiply by 0)
=2+1+1 (the zero is added into the 1, making 1)
=3+1
=4
can’t believe i actually have to break down kindergarten level math (beside the multiplication). where i’m from, you should be able to see through this question like a rain of neutrinos by primary 2.
Ratafak Plachta it’s 4
0 likes@Thalweg i multiplied both the 3 and the 1 by 2 but then remembered that your question was not an equation and there was no x to turn it from 2x(3+1) to 6x + 2x.
0 likesRatafak Plachta The answer is 4.
1 likeMany people do this mistake while doing arithmetics. Use BODMAS every time while calculating. BODMAS - Brackets of division, multiplication, addition and subtraction. In short, do division first, then multiplication, then addition and finally subtraction.
It was a really stupid and confusing question for Millionaire.
1 like@Ceares no it's 4.
0 likesWeird how you thought a question asking for which number is SUM of two smaller squares would in any way involve multiplication.
1 like@Ceares order of operations, my friend… order of operations…
0 likes@Ceares probably american
0 likesi love how audience claps
0 likesThe most embarrassing part isn't even that he didn't know. It's that he chose to ASK THE AUDIENCE. Imagine thinking an American game show audience would know the answer. They clearly just picked the first option because they didn't know.
115 likesReplies (5)
Naw it's kind of intuitive like pattern recognition or smth, you think 4 is a square of 2, 4 squared is 16 bam click it as answer.
7 likesForgetting to check wth you were trying to solve.
That's the problem with "I have a calculator in my pocket." That doesn't mean that you understand the problem.
0 likes@gytis dramblewolfskis
0 likesIOW, the problem was simple, but not simple enough for the audience to solve it.
@gytis dramblewolfskis what are you squaring the 4 for, it says sum and its preety clear
0 likes@Raulxz see you were thinking about maths you also forgot to think what I actually said.
0 likesIt's almost the same thing but opposite. Quite hilarious, really 🤣
Maybe he wanted to include radicals and thought that √8^2 + √8^2 is equal to 16.
1 likePeople talking about the math and I’m just shocked that I only found out now that there’s an American version of this show😂😂
0 likesOh man, $15,000! I would have been a millionaire!
0 likesIt's not about the math, it's about knowing what the question is asking. Under the bright studio lights with money on the line, I doubt that guy could have remembered his social security number.
55 likesReplies (4)
Then why did he even get on the show?
1 like@Christopher Stein wtf r u asking
11 likesEveryone has stage freight, but some hide and and some try to keep it down.
Sure, tell everyone you could do this easily, but you're not the center of attention of 200 people, and in front of your parents, and 5000 more poeple live.
@Jay Polas This guy had unlimited time to solve a question for 6th grade students. He just f'd up.
4 likesI can't even remember my own phone number. I still know that 3 squared plus 4 squared equals 5 squared.
1 like"This is hard when you're sitting up here"
2 likesIt's Pythagorean Theorem. One of the first thing you learn in math.
I instantly knew it cause I already know it. Even if I don't know it, I can guess it because I remember what the squares of numbers upto 13 look like without even thinking about it.
0 likesHowever, if I don't already remember those squares in my mind, I believe it would have taken a good amount of time for me to solve it without pen and paper.
3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, it comes up a lot. Also did i hear "we'll be back with more college week" haha
0 likesAhahaha. That’s a trickster. Cause the 16 is a multiplication of two square numbers. I went with 16 instantly too lol
0 likesthat's 1 of the easiest 16K questions ever
0 likesThis is one of those problems where the wording can really throw you off. I thought it was 16 at first too, and I'm not bad at math at all.
291 likesReplies (26)
Ben May I ask the what you thought it said?
13 likesI thought it was 36 because 3 squared is 9, and 2 squared is 4. when you do 9×4=36. did not read sum meaning + correctly.
5 likesStar Citizen 890J then it could be 16 as well.. So that means, there would be 2 answers and that isnt possible. (2^2) X (2^2) = 4 X 4 = 16
9 likes+Star Citizen 890j I thought it was 36. Because I thought 3^3=27 and 3^2=9 27+9=36. Understood the question terribly wrong.
1 likeThe question was worded ok, just get good at reading. It's a Pythagorean triple if you listened in math class. 3+4=5
8 likesIt's not really a problem you would ever do in math class. At least I never did in math class.
3 likesStar Citizen 890J Addition is sum, multiplication is product.
1 likeBen It depents how much math you take in high school. There are plenty of these kind of problems in high school math or at least were I went to school. Also did every math class they had. That probably is the reason.
1 likeBen your bad bcz I'm at 8th grade and I knew it was 25
2 likesBADRonne, congratulations. I figured out it was 25 when I reread the problem and looked over it. I just misunderstood the problem at first because it seemed weird to me. I had never seen a problem that was asking something like that before. And yea I'm pretty sure I'm better at math than you if you're in 8th grade.
2 likesBADRonne Eighth grade teaches you nothing. Wait until you get to high school and you'll learn some real math.
1 likeBen you are a fucking idiot. No matter how many times I've read this question I can't seem to find how it is 16. You must be like in grade 6 or some shit if you haven't seen a question worded like this
2 likesMoishcan Fucking kid you're still in high school. High school math doesn't teach you fuck all
0 likesAyden Rox I was comparing it to middle school.
0 likesBen it says it as clear as it can
7 likesondrej supermon no sum is addition not multiplication
4 likesThen you are bad at English bro
3 likesit has nothing to do with wording.. people dont know the difference between product and sum... which is the problem lol
1 likeBen Yeah, many people may have thought that it was A, as 2^4=16.. I got the answer right but I understand where people may be coming from
2 likesBen you are
10 likesYou most certainly are.
4 likesBen yes u are sir
0 likesThere was nothing wrong with the wording, Ben.
0 likes@lx Words like that are meaningless if they apply to everything like that. So yes, "square numbers" ARE "perfect squares"; negative nine isn't square just because it's (3i)².
0 likesThinking it was 16 and saying "I am not bad at math at all" is quite a statement. It´s like crashing 10 cars in 10 days and saying "I am a good driver".
0 likesI really do not see the problem with the wording at all
0 likesThere is a difference between needing time to process what a question is saying, and not understanding the question at all - it seems as if a lot of people in here don't realise that fact. And by the way, this guy was nervous and under pressure in the middle of a game show.
0 likesif he took the first numbers (1 square = 1; 2 square = 4; 3 square =9 etc) and said them out loud he could do it, but he chose a silent mind freeze like I did
0 likesHilarious that the audience couldn't get it
1 likeThe audience either didn’t know the answer or knew the answer but they still gave the wrong answer anyway.
0 likesThis is not even math.. this is just calculation 😂😂
0 likesI would have sat there for an hour checking every combination of numbers in my head.
375 likesReplies (25)
there aren't many combinations to check before you arrive at the right answer
75 likes1, 4, 9, 16 and the answer is there already
55 likesThe only possible initial combinations range from 1^2 to 7^2. This allows nCr(7,2) = 21 possible combinations. Though it can be deduced that 1^2 and 7^2 cannot be possibly involved; 1^2 would allow all answers to be correct and 7^2 is not smaller than any of the numbers listed. This makes the range fall between 2^2 to 6^2, allowing nCr(5,2) = 10 possible combinations.
31 likesIf you start cycling through these combinations upwards from 2^2, you will reach the answer by the 5th pair.
1) 4+9=13 ❌
2) 4+16=20 ❌
3) 4+25=29 ❌
4) 4+36=40 ❌
5) 9+16=25 ✅
An hour!! 🥳
4 likesIn 10 minutes you checked everything and triple checked slowly too.
3 likes@Meowmere you have to know what square numbers are at least. And this guy was clueless, I think. Probably thinking "dafuq, how numbers can even be square, it's digits, not polygons duh"
15 likes@Autumn Desolation good point
10 likesalthough it's depressing to think that there are adults who don't know what square numbers are
I know, I'm educated in math so I knew instantly, but if I wasn't I would have just worked it out.
4 likesThe question hints at what square numbers are, as the answers are all square numbers, so just means knowing what sum means.
@demon in denim Start with the smaller numbers, eliminating as you go. !6 has to be the sum of two squares less than 4, nope, 25 muss be less than 5, oh, 4 sq = 16, 9 jumps right out. 15 seconds flat.
0 likesAt first I thought "oh this isn't so bad" and then I realized it had to be two different numbers, and doing math in that context? Forget it I'd be up there all night
1 likeThats a useless method, just think of the first perfect squares and work out all the cominations if you want to, it’ll take 2 mins, not the whole night
0 likesIt only takes 30 seconds to look at 2, 3, 4, 5 squares and find out the answer. The guy simply was unable to think.
0 likes@Sebastien H it takes like 2-3 seconds
1 like@demon in denim what about 4+4=8 or 9+9=18 or 16+16=32. Who said the squares had to be different?
0 likesi nanaged to check them all before he asked the audience
0 likesstopping when you find the right answer is bad practice though. what if you mistaken?
0 likesYes, what WAS he doing sitting there?
0 likes@demon in denim But in practice you'd check the number itself starting from bottom 2².
0 likes16: 4+12, 9+7 ❌
25: 4+21, 9+16 ✅
Since they are square 4,5,6,7. That'd leave 2+3+4+5 combinations
@Pawel Zielinski The question specifically asks for the result to be a square number. Not only are 8, 18, 32 etc. not square numbers, they aren't even listed as possible answers.
1 like@Shirahago yes, you are right.
0 likes@Amirus Sure, if that's what you would do go ahead. What I described, though, I did do myself.
0 likesMy method uses square numbers to find an answer that matches one of the four on the screen.
Your method finds the difference between one of the answers on screen and all square numbers less than it. If that difference is a square number, that number is correct.
Simply different methods that both work fine.
i did that and it took a min
1 likeYou're impractical
0 likes@demon in denim But why would 1^2 allow all answers to be correct? Take 16 for example. 1^2+15 is the only way to get 16 but 15 is not a square number
0 likes@demon in denim Oh maybe you meant combinations that include non-square numbers
0 likesTo be fair, I'm good at maths but would've struggled with this question. On one hand, I can do the actual calculations pretty easily - mentally listing the square numbers and trying combinations until I find the right answer. On the other hand, it took a little while before I thought to take this systematic approach, and it would've been worse if I was in that seat.
0 likesReplies (2)
If you were good at math you would know what a Pythagorean Triple is and solve this in a second.
0 likes@mambda I don't remember the Pythagorean Triple. However, I know that 25 is the square of 5. Once you know that, you only have FOUR squares to choose from - 1, 4, 9, and 16...
0 likesThe whole audience loses him thousands of dollars and then proceeds to applaud
0 likeslol I bet the host wouldn't even know the answer if she was asked the same question.
1 likeI swear the majority of math problems aren't even math problems lol. Most of the time it's understanding the Grammer and phrasing of the question.
0 likesI stupidly read this as "two (of the same) smaller square numbers" and was stumped. I can easily see people mistakenly misreading the question or making a slight error (such as thinking it's asking for which number can be composed of two squared numbers squared, meaning 16).
1 likeI think the most common confusion is thinking that the 2 numbers which must sum to the square, must the same number. For example 32 is made of 16+16 , which are both squares, but I quickly realized no answers satisfy that, re-read the question, then figured it out. I think a lot ppl just rush and guess what 'feels' right without slowing down and being methodical...that's a common mistake I make in math
393 likesReplies (27)
I'm seeing this a lot and I don't understand it at all. What is people's compulsion to add totally arbitrary additional conditions to a math problem?
25 likesbut 16 can be also correct 4^2 + 0^2 as zero is also a number though it is whole number in question, it has not been mentioned whether to take real imaginary or whole number
11 likes@꧁ ꧂ because they haven't experienced this type of math for a while and it's not immediately obvious to them, "square numbers" is a confusing term and most people would probably only know that two squared is four.
8 likes@strings to paradise ! So can 25 with 5^2 +0^2, and any other square
8 likes@strings to paradise ! 16 isn't "smaller" than 16.
17 likesThat's impossible though because that would mean a square is the smaller square times 2, which would have a square root of the smaller square root times square root of 2, which is not an integer, and all of those listed squares have integer roots. I feel like people should know that kind of basic math intuitively.
2 likesIf the question meant the 2 numbers had to be the same then it would say which square number is double a smaller square number. "The sum of 2 smaller square numberS" note the final s, instinctively makes me think that because it's pleural it has to be 2 different numbers. I didn't even consider that you could use the same number twice because of the wording. So it is surprising to me that so many people thought at first it had to be 2 the same.
1 likenah they just american
3 likessame
0 likes@𝕊𝕦ℙ𝕒𝕒 Ψ I’m American and I knew the answer immediately.
1 like@Brandon Kellner Other than a trivia game, where would that math be practical!
0 likes@Adrian Thoroughgood I would have thought it was pretty intuitive to understand most people don't have an intuitive grasp on math but here we are.
0 likes...32 isn't a square
1 like@strings to paradise ! woah, didn't think about that. But you might be overthinking just a little bit of a lot.
0 likes@hello it said 2 SMALLER perfect squares and 16 isnt smaller than 16
0 likes@PokeJin WWI what are you talking about
0 likes@hello the question asked what squared number happened to also be the sum of two smaller square numbers, 4^2 + 0^2 doesn't work because 16 is equal to 4^2, not greater than
1 likeI think the most common factor is that the audience is thick.
0 likesI think the phrasing is unclear , technically they must say different numbers ,and they didn't mention that
0 likesSo 16 could be correct 4^2+4^2
@AAA what? No, 16 = 4²
0 likes@hello thanks, I noticed that they want the sum . I understood that
0 likes@Owen Aspinall noo when you ask questions in maths multiplying/division/exponentiation by 0 is a taboo so learn basic concepts, it's simply Pythagorean triplets, (2 consecutive squares have the sum which is a square of a higher no.)
0 likes@Panda Desu I get that, I was pointing out the flaw in the reasoning of 4^2 + 0^2=16, by saying you can literally do something similar with every perfect square. Somebody else already pointed out that the squares have to be smaller, so 4^2=16 is not less than 16. I understand that 25 is correct because of the Pythagorean triple 345. Also I get dividing by 0, but how is multiplying/exponentiating 0 "taboo"?
0 likes@PokeJin WWI have you tried non integers, there's infinite number of ways to make all answers correct.
0 likes1^2 + (root(15))^2 =16
3^2 + (root(7))^2=16
Does the question make this illegal? Cause I don't see it
@gytis dramblewolfskis Definition of square number: The result of multiplying an integer by itself. 15 is not a square number because you can not multiply two of the same integers to get it
0 likes@PokeJin WWI ohh i get it now so square numbers is actually specific term that only includes integers and not any other numbers. Why tf isn't it straightforwardly called square integers or smth is baffling.
0 likes@gytis dramblewolfskis lol idk
0 likesMath question to the audience.... great choice!
0 likesIf you get this question ever you should immediately know it’s 25
0 likesIt’s literally just the Pythagorean theorem with 3, 4, 5 being every school in the US’s DEFAULT example
I cant believe the audience full of adults cant even get it right and I can.
1 likeEnglish isn't my native language, but I had some difficulties to actually understand the question in first place... took a while.
1 likeAnswer is B: 25 | 16 and 9... 16+9=25
EDIT: Blah... it was told anyway on at the end of vid.... GG.
I feel bad for him 😔
2 likesI got this in maybe 5 seconds, but I imagine being in that hot seat with $15,000 on the line makes it incredibly hard to think.
569 likesReplies (22)
It probably didn't even dawn on him that the two square numbers could be different. When you're the one in the situation, it can be so hard to overlook the simplest things.
105 likes@TRJ2241987 that’s true. Simple mistake. I almost went with 16 immediately, and then quickly corrected myself to 25. 16 and 9.
42 likesI didn’t even understand the question until I started going through the comments, and even after that I was still confused at what the correct answer was.
35 likesI got it as soon as I saw 25
3 likes@BubbaWigglytuff I didn't either until I heard the answer and the explanation for it. But then again, math was not my best subject in school.
9 likes@BubbaWigglytuff - but we learn this stuff in school when we're like 13 or 14 years old. It's elementary stuff, not exactly calculus.
5 likes@squodge productions I think it was just the way the question was worded that had me confused at first, and that just kinda impacted how I thought about what the correct answer would be
11 likesIt took you 5 seconds... that long haa... clearly you are an American..
0 likesshouldn't have been though. this is legitimately very easy
0 likes@BubbaWigglytuff B. 9 + 16 = 25 (3² + 4² = 5²)
1 like@slapmyfunkybass because the sum of 16 and 25 is 41.
0 likes@TRJ2241987 That's actually why it took me so long to get the right answer lmao. I worked it out like this. A) 8 + 8. nope, B) 12.5 + 12.5 Still no. OHH DUH 9 + 16. OMG I'm dumb.
2 likesThen I un paused and saw what the audience gave him. lol He was doomed.
@EpicWolves Wow! You will certainly receive the Nobel Prize within five years. Genius!
2 likes@squodge productions So you learned this question specifically? No wonder you knew the answer then!
1 like@Alex G. I straight up didn’t follow the question lmao. I was thinking, like someone else said, that the two squared numbers had to be the same. I think the wording got him, rather than the math.
2 likes@ TRJ2241987 But isn't it kinda obvious that square number cannot be another square number multiplied by 2.
1 like@TRJ2241987 even if he thought they it would be the sum of the same square number, that's even worse- this would imply ofc that the saught after number is half of it. In the case of 16 = 8 +8. Now 8 is ofc no square number (whole numbers). I mean sry but how can one not think this through for a sec when picking what the audience says. And to the others - they arent even pair numbers, so halfing them doesn't give u a whole number in the first place. So thinking that it has to be the same numbers shows even more incompetence.
0 likesWELL THAY ARE CERTAINLY LEADING A BETTER LIFE THAN MOST OF US
1 like@Jagdish Nair WELL THAY ARE CERTAINLY MORE COMPETENT THAN US AS CITIZENS
1 like@Jagdish Nair How is five seconds a long amount of time???? It’s five seconds that’s pretty damn fast
4 likes@Dungeons and Dragons and Drive Throughs there are a lot of triangle examples where one side is 3 and 4 and the larger side is 5 , 3^2+4^2 = 5^2, 5 is the smallest number that is the root of two diffent intergers squared. But yeah talk me 5 seconds bu if I hot a ot of adrenaline flowing through me it would be hard.
0 likesIt’s also rather confusing as to how it’s being asked. One would have to listen rather carefully. I too thought 16 until I was reminded of “sum.”
0 likesFor a minute I sat there thinking, I went through 2 squared 3 squared 4 squared 5 squared 6 squared 7 squared and thought that the question said 2 same* smaller square numbers and I was like that's none of them. Then I reread the question and realized I cannot read lol.
0 likesWhen Audience Started clapping I get sure that this incident was pre-decided.
1 likeThats like 2nd class maths😭😭
0 likesThe problem here is the confusing phrasing of the question. I, as so many others, thought that the smaller numbers had to be the same, but 8, 12.5, 18 and 24.5 are all not square numbers. 2 minutes later (I paused the video before the answer was revealed) I realized that the numbers didn't have to be the same and I ended up at 25 which is the sum of 16 (4^2) and 9 (3^2).
24 likesReplies (4)
No idea how you got to 12.5 and 24.5
1 like@Drakky 25/2=12.5, 49/2=24.5
1 likeNah. Not confusing at all, it says clearly that the sum is made of two smaller numbers. If the numbers had to be the same then it would be "a number" that was doubled. Just admit that you got it wrong and life goes on.
2 likes@Drakky divided by 2
0 likesHonestly though I can see how this is confusing bc I thought it meant 2 of the same numbers squared added together is the answer granted from a mathematical perspective this would be impossible
1 like"take your time"
765 likesStares at him impatiently
Replies (4)
Sums up women haha.
19 likesBecause she wanted him to lose $15K or else ABC would have been paying him more if he had answered the right one. ABC is in the business of saving money and making a profit, unfortunately...
2 likes......
0 likesHe could take his time, but there was only so much time to take.
0 likes4squared=16 and 3squared=9 add the two numbers and you get 5squared(25). For those who don't know what the question is asking..
2 likesWhen it comes to math masses go with gut feeling the contestant really put all his eggs even though it's known from generations masses are not good at math.
0 likesthis was such a painfully easy question too ;-;
0 likesIt took a moment - the wording of the question is tricky - but I got it.
0 likesUnbelievable how easy was that answer.
0 likesI can understand the audience getting it wrong because I presume they don't have a lot of time pressing the buzzer. They probably went with gut feeling. But the guy had all the time in the world available to him. He could have just tried out all combinations! But then again I know the feeling of my brain completely frying during a test, so I'd say it was his nerves that cost him $15.000.
23 likesReplies (2)
Is there a time limit? Because... you know, for a couple of thousand dollars, I'd be willing to make my head work overtime.
3 likesReally, if someone tells me to take my ruddy time because I can win a shitload of money, even if I'm not a smarty, I can at least analyze the question and buy myself a couple of minutes. He went down without a fight. Could have at least tried even if the nerves told him to flee.
Bro
0 likesI get the guy, he's there all nervous, which would make me forget simple stuff too (you never know how many contestants got a simple answer wrong because they feel pressured) but the audience?!
0 likesIt's weird for the sacrilegious clap after what audience did to him. Well, he deserved that tho..
0 likesI also said 16 !! 😂🌚 I need someone with a pen
0 likesIt’s 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 btw! 9 + 16 = 25. One of those things that stick with you if you do Pythagoras Theorem a little too many times.
0 likesI'm good at math, but I had to pause the video to take time to work it out. Under pressure, I like to think I would have worked it out, but I don' really know. At least I got the right answer now.
0 likesI don't blame the audience, this question was worded weirdly...
67 likesReplies (35)
if you lack a 8th grade education, possibly.
9 likesI'm an engineering student
11 likesMrY3110w must not be a great one
6 likesM Ali Sucks for you knowing you and your family's lives might depend on me one day then
11 likesI'm an engineering student as well, and I thought it was worded weirdly too.
21 likesIt's worded just fine independant of what kind of student you are. What could you possibly get wrong here?
1 likeValera Osipov what's the point of telling you the numbers are squares numbers
0 likesMrY3110w So that's what confusing? One word? It's not math problem then, it must be some kind of mental disease when one is not able to separate sentence in parts.
1 likeValera Osipov I presume you are able to understand any texts without any confusion just by separating sentences in parts?
2 likesValera Osipov Also I never said the math was a problem... I said the question was worded weirdly, which a lot of people agrees with
5 likesVahe Hakobyan Like I said, the math was not hard, it was the wording of the question. I don't know what kind of math you learn in your country but you certainly do not need to know that the number is a square to know the answer. 4^2 and 0^2 is also correct.
3 likesPS Universities don't just take anyone for their engineering programs, especially not the university I go to. Before you take a jab at my abilities on the internet to show off your dominance, please read what I said before typing away
Vahe Hakobyan I'm starting to think you're just some 13 year old with a big ego. Seeing my post is one of the most liked posts on this video proves the fact that a lot of people agrees with me. If you scroll through the comments you can see other people also thinks the question was weird. I highly doubt you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you figured that out all by yourself and not because the video gave you the answer or anything :p
3 likesVahe Hakobyan I think the question is poorly stated as well, in my opinion. I'm a computer engineering student at a university also and have taken Calculus and math courses. I obviously know the math but the question was weirdly stated. You don't need to be a jerk because other people think it's stated strangely. We all think differently after all, even a child could figure that out so don't be rude.
10 likesVahe Hakobyan What are you asking for? It is a matter of opinion. We think it is oddly stated, you don't. We don't need to provide evidence for an opinion lol. We aren't looking to publish a paper on the oddity of the question asked. This is youtube, get over your pompous little self.
7 likesI'd like to point out a few things I noticed. And various points refer to various different people and their claims.
13 likes1. I can understand why people think the question is worded oddly. Most people don't know much about math and don't care to know much about math, so many people would not be familiar with reading/comprehending the precise language and terminology used in mathematics.
2. Being an engineer (or engineering student) does not mean you are good at math. You may be good at finding derivatives, solving differential equations, plugging numbers into formulas, etc., but none of that stuff is on the forefront of mathematics. Actual mathematics is proof-intensive. In a proof-intensive mathematics course, you will be lucky to see a few computational problems ever. Also, in a proof-intensive mathematics course, one must pay attention very carefully to what terminology is used. Mathematics terminology has very precise meanings and must be communicated in a very precise manner; otherwise, you may end up saying something incorrectly or saying something you did not intend to say. Most universities do not hold engineering majors up to this standard, teaching mathematics courses more as a "plug and chug" type course, as opposed to a course on actual mathematical reasoning and thought. So being an engineer (or engineering student) may give you an advantage compared to the average person on having seen more mathematical ideas, it certainly does not mean that you are an authority on mathematics.
3. "what's the point of telling you the numbers are squares numbers" So that it is a more interesting mathematical fact. Who cares if two square numbers happen to add up to some random number? It is far more interesting that a square number can be the sum of two smaller square numbers.
4. "The question is not poorly stated. It is just indicating the possible usage of Pythagorean theorem." I vehemently disagree. While one can connect the problem with the Pythagorean Theorem, the problem is not indicating or hinting at the Pythagorean Theorem being used. The Pythagorean Theorem is a theorem from Euclidean geometry. This question is a question about number theory. While connections can be made, this does not mean that the question is indicating any sort of possible usage of the Pythagorean Theorem here. I don't even understand how one could even actually use the Pythagorean Theorem to answer this question.
5. I agree that there's no reason to be a jerk here. It doesn't help to convince anyone of anything.
6. "4^2 and 0^2 is also correct." I know this was already pointed out, but I'd like to point it out again. The question specifically states that the two square number you are adding together must be smaller than the sum. 4^2 is equal to, and thus not smaller than the sum, so this is not a valid solution to the question as it is posed.
7. "Seeing my post is one of the most liked posts on this video proves the fact that a lot of people agrees with me." Okay, good. I know you did not suggest this, but I'm afraid of people reading something you did not say into it. Just because a lot of people agree with you does not mean you are correct. Again, I'm not saying that you suggested you were correct. (You didn't.) There isn't really a "correct" or "incorrect" about what you stated anyway, but more about that in point 8. I'm just bringing up this point because people have argued on this video before that just because they have gotten a lot of likes (or pluses or whatever) that they are correct. That is certainly not the case. Especially for things relating to mathematics.
8. The main "debaters" (so to speak) in this argument are not arguing against each other. One side is arguing that the question is worded strangely, while the other side is arguing that the question is worded correctly. Yes, the question is indeed worded correctly. And yes, most people do consider the question to be worded strangely, weirdly, or oddly. These things are not mutually exclusive nor are they opposites. It is worded correctly in that there is one correct answer and all of the words make mathematical sense based on the mathematical definitions. It is worded strangely in that most people don't have an exposure to the precise language that mathematics uses, and thus, are not prepared to read a question with this caliber of mathematical language.
9. "What are you asking for? It is a matter of opinion. We think it is oddly stated, you don't. We don't need to provide evidence for an opinion lol." Okay, I understand you. At the same time, however, you could explain why you think the question is oddly stated. Going into that reasoning would certainly not hurt you. It could help you learn how to develop an argument in a better way than you currently do (and it certainly won't hurt your arguing skills if it doesn't help you). Perhaps upon further meditation on the question, you may decide to change your mind. Perhaps you could change someone else's mind by pointing out something that someone else may not have thought of yet. Perhaps you are missing something - maybe you have a gap in your knowledge about the meaning of one of the terms. If this is the case, someone could explain it to you. So while you don't have to support an opinion, true, it could be beneficial to one of the parties involved.
I'm sorry for being so long winded, but I wanted to respond to a lot.
MuffinsAPlenty Thanks for being able to see both sides of the argument. I did not say the question was stated wrong, I just think the question as stated strangely. Like you said, the terminology used here is intended more for mathematicians, not engineers, certainly not most of the people in the crowd.
2 likesMuffinsAPlenty
4 likesI think "Which of these square numbers is also the sum of two smaller square numbers?" is a much better wording for the question. It's not as wordy as the orginal and a little more concise than the original question. "..also happens to be" is not really needed. The answer choice either is or isn't, it doesn't "happen" to be anything. However, I could understand why WWTBAM would word it that way. At first hearing the question could sound a little confusing.
Mathematically, as you were saying, the orignal question is correctly stated, however it sounds too wordy. That's my take on it.
The question couldn't have been worded better.
2 likesAaron Rice
2 likesCause you say so?
Sum Says I like your improvement very much, actually. Definitely agree with what you said.
0 likes1878EFC2008 I didn't know youtube was exclusive to the United States
2 likesVahe Hakobyan So... nobody understood why this was intended to be written this way. Indeed the question doesn't lack consistency at all. However, given his situation, the production wanted to rearrange the wording so that it becomes more confusing. In such nerve-cracking situations, this would help to confuse many people. He reacted correctly, asking for the crowd's opinion, in order to calm himself. Nevertheless, he did not take his time, and the crowd was also bamboozed, though in a much more comfortable position and gave him the middle finger (figuratively)
3 likes1878EFC2008
0 likesYou don't know much about America do you? It's the lead developer in the developing world and yet somehow, the laughing stock? Also... unless the school is private, creationism is not taught.
That's a great minus, since creationism is crucial in today's needs. Even if industry is going great, it doesn't solve the aforementioned problem
0 likesMuffinsAPlenty
0 likesI agree with everything you wrote in your post except perhaps this:
"I can understand why people think the question is worded oddly. Most people don't know much about math and don't care to know much about math, so many people would not be familiar with reading/comprehending the precise language and terminology used in mathematics" and "It is worded strangely in that most people don't have an exposure to the precise language that mathematics uses, and thus, are not prepared to read a question with this caliber of mathematical language."
Worded oddly and using terms that not everyone knows are different things. This is what makes trivia trivia - having to know specific, seemingly obscure things in order to figure out the answer. Even if a "square number" were known as a "Goulashian number," then knowing what a "Goulashian number" is would just be part of the process. Knowing terms and background information is part of trivia and part of what makes it challenging, and it's why not everyone can get them all right.
I understand, this question was worded strangely.
1 likeMuffinsAPlenty MrY3110w
1 likeDefinitely improper wording. You could easily make a case for any of these answers. It's obviously B, but (2√10)^2 + 3^2 = 49, likewise (√(36-pi^2))^2 + pi^2 = 36 also (√(16-e^2))^2 + e^2 = 16 and those are all "smaller square numbers". Its a technicality but still.
Tylemaker19 Careful!
0 likes"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
"A square number, also called a perfect square, is a figurate number of the form S_n=n^2, where n is an integer."
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
Part of the definition of a square number is that the number must be the square of an integer. As such, your examples do not fit the criteria put forth in the question, as all of them use as an addend a number which cannot be written as the square of an integer.
This hearkens back to my point about mathematics using very precise terminology. In this case, "square number" means something different from "square of a number."
Ya I sorta realized that. I personally think it would have been significantly better to say "Perfect Square" even if it is synonymous with "Square Number" purely because the common person, or even some math profs ive had (might be a language issue) doesn't necessarily associate the two terms.
0 likesEither way, dumb question, easy answer
MuffinsAPlenty Then in that case, if our criteria is that we need to choose two perfect squares with each being less than the result, -4 and 0 satisfy A.
0 likesPeter Geras
0 likes"if our criteria is that we need to choose two perfect squares with each being less than the result, -4 and 0 satisfy A."
First of all, -4 is not a perfect square (or square number) since -4 is not the square of an integer. There is no integer n such that n^2 = -4. Additionally, -4 + 0 = -4, not 16.
If you mean that we can use (-4)^2 + (0)^2 = 16, then this, again, does not satisfy the criteria for the question.
The square number (or perfect square) in question is not -4, but (-4)^2 = 16, and 16 is not smaller than 16.
The question states that the square numbers you are adding together have to be smaller than the sum. The question never mentions the square roots of the square numbers you are adding together (which is the only way that -4 could ever come into play here).
The reason these engineers are saying its worded weirdly is because they've been dealing too much with computers which need extremely precise directions forcing them to get into the habit of wanting extremely precis directions. Doesn't mean their dumb only that if you give vague directions nothing will get done if you give precise directions shit'll get done ;)
1 likeEngineers should be able to tell which information is useless.
0 likes@MrY3110w Oh boy, how low the standards are these days when engineering students cannot even fogure out elementary school math.
0 likesIntentional of course
0 likes"Why are we even learning the Pythagorean theorem? We won't used that in the real life!"
0 likesLose 15k$ :o
No way he couldn't have figured it out if he would have taken his time. Just got flustered and went with the audience without thinking about it. You can figure out what a square number is just by looking at the answers if you don't know. Then just sit there and run through them until tell you get it.
0 likesOh i got it, and I'm drunk too. But I could feel the pressure, so i understand how he got it wrong. tough break.
0 likesYes I paused the video to figure it out but I still got it right regardless basically bordering genius
1 likeI mean, both the audience and AOL said 16, so you can't really blame him.
0 likesgod damn it i have a midterm in 2 hours
20 likesReplies (1)
lmao! 12 hours for me.
2 likesEnglish is not my first language so I interpreted this question completely wrong. I thought that these numbers were results of perfect squares, and that the perfect squares themselves must the the result of perfect squares as well. So I thought 4 x 4 = 16, and 2 x 2 = 4, therefore it's A. Glad I'm not this guy, I'm pretty good at mathematics but I would have looked like a complete fool lmao
0 likesEven if you didn't recognise the answer straight away (anyone who knows a what 3,4,5 triangle would see it instantly) - surely even someone crap at maths would take a couple of minutes to work it out with some basic adding up !
0 likesI swear the audience always tries to sabotage 😅
0 likesbut learning math will cost you about the same amount, plus a lot of time
0 likesI dont want to be smart at math
0 likesBecause i actually counted the square numbers just to help him
That moment when 70% of the audience don't know the answer
40 likesI think a better way to word this question would be “Which of these perfect squares also happens to be the sum of two smaller perfect squares?”
0 likesReplies (1)
Square number and perfect square are two terms for the same thing. It is unnecessary to substitute one for the other.
1 likeI think the audience thought that the Square had to itself be made up of squares. 16 being the square of 4 which is a square of 2. But obviously that's from misinterpreting the question as the real answer makes this quite obvious and trivial
0 likesWhen trusting the public can cost you 15000
0 likesHe doesn't know, half of the audience doesn't know, and half of the AOL audience doesn't know. That is SAD!
0 likesShould've used the other life line, the 80/20 one
0 likesFeel for this guy... yes, this isn’t too tough a question at home, but a different story on TV with a live audience and lights etc. I can see how it could be confusing... he did the right think asking the audience and if you are aiming big you can’t then really afford to use all your other lifelines reconfirming what they have told you. He got the question wrong, but not his approach. Hopefully he is luckier in love!
368 likesReplies (11)
How was asking the audience the right thing? the audience gave the wrong answer, so it was clearly the wrong move.
9 likesCalling a friend that he knows is good at Math (or at least smart), would have been a better move.
I agree to Keith not to yt
2 likesHell, I didn't know the answer. I was leaning towards 49, why idk. You don't get those questions on a job interview. I consider myself successful for only having a HS diploma, a house (mortgage), a few cars, shit load of tools, go kart, 5 lawnmowers. Just an average steelworker,nothing fancy.
3 likesYeah, he got out on the spot and was too nervous to figure it out. Math can do that to you haha
1 likeNo it’s a simple math problem. He’s an idiot who doesn’t know what a square number is. This dude wouldn’t pass 9th grade basic algebra.
1 likeMore like algebruh
@Isaac Swoyer Yeah, he probably wouldn't be able to pass 9th grade basic algebra!... If it required answering math problems in front of a live audience with a bunch of lights in his face and thousands of dollars on the line.
2 likesMost people are not great at math under this much pressure.
@youuuuuuuuuuutube since this show is American, if you speak a different language that isn’t very common in the US then just ask your family what’s 4^2 + 3^2.
0 likesI don't feel for him, I don't think he could be arsed to even try to answer it.
1 likeThe answer is in the question, as it tells you all the numbers there were square numbers, so once you know the square numbers are 1,4,9,16,25,... its just a matter of trying different pairs till you find a pair that add up to one of the 4 options.
anti8
0 likes@Paul Ramos depends on the job interview. Some that require Bachelors degree or higher DO ask those types of questions.
0 likes@João Marcos Costa Since most the audience got it wrong, it seems most people aren’t good at math, when
0 likesOh my goodness, even the freaking audience!!!
0 likestbh if I were in the audience i'd vote a mistake by anger of seeing a grown man not able to figure that out.
0 likesHigh school math! YEESH!!
0 likesPuh, took me about 8 minutes to figure out what exactly the question was about. But at least I came up with the right answer at the end.
0 likesBut if I was forced to come up with an answer quickly, it would have been 16 for me, but I certainly would not have felt certain with it.
I will be lying to you if I told you this guy passed 6th grade maths.
0 likesthats why math is important,for such common events like this :D
97 likesReplies (9)
Magda Draganova "common"
14 likes"random"
0 likesGlockel sarcasm
0 likesWhy is everyone on the internet such a douche ffs
0 likesIs it weird that I instantly knew the answer 16+9=25?
0 likesGlockel cuz normal people are not on the internet :D
1 likeOh yeah! :D
1 likeknowing how long something is is obviously not important for anything
0 likesAlso for building computers and software for people to write dumb comments.
1 likeMost easiest example teacher gives you Pythogorus Theorum
0 likesAnyone who's done pythagoras sums knows it well
0 likesWhen i clicked i thought it'll be some hard question ain't no way mid aged ppl couldn't solve it💀
0 likesThe most famous triangle in all of Pythagorum.
0 likesVery difficult question, maybe combinations possible/need to be searched... haha... quiz master totally screwed everybody lol.
0 likesRoses are red, violets are blue
2194 likesThis is on my recommended 11 years later
How about you?
Replies (49)
me too
9 likesit's this algorithm
12 likesi don't understand why it wanted us to see this
edit: yes i typed this like im implying it's a living thing
it probably is
Me too
0 likesSame bruh 😢
1 likeExactly the same
1 likeMe too
2 likesI just got it now lol
1 likeSame haha. Weird
1 likeYes
1 likeHhhh 😅
2 likessame.
1 likeI think we all get a TV show now.. We've been brought together.. but why
1 likeJonsyTheGerman same
1 likeJonsyTheGerman - Indeed. What the heck, You Tube?
1 likeMe in 2118
1 likeLol true
1 likesame
1 likeJonsyTheGerman me
1 likeYeah same 11 years later
1 likeJonsyTheGerman the second line doesn’t rhyme... so it actually would sound pretty weird if you said it out loud. Try it....
1 likeLong time ago...
2 likesSame
0 likesSame xD
1 likeSame here! 😂😂
0 likesSame
1 likeSame
1 likeJonsyTheGerman
0 likesYep
@• Kal • me too 😂😂
0 likesSame 😂
0 likesMe 💯 th
0 likesJonsyTheGerman because 11 years later he killed the whole audience.
0 likesJonsyTheGerman me too
0 likes13 years
1 like13 yrs
2 likes13 years later this time.
1 likeTry 13
1 like13 years
0 likes13 for me!!
0 likesFor me its 13 yrs
0 likes13 for me
0 likes13 years later
0 likes13 years for me.
0 likes13 years
0 likesNow.... 13 years later😅
0 likesRoses are red,
1 likeViolets are f*cking violet,
not blue.
F*ck you.
14 years
2 likes14 for me
0 likes14 years, lol
0 likesI'm in the future in 2023
0 likesTHE SUM, the sum of two square numbers, I was thinking the quotient of two other square numbers and probably the audience as well. How tricky lol
0 likesTechnically, it would be all of them. As stated, they are all square numbers, and because zero squared is zero, then the sum of the number on the screen (which is a square number) plus zero (also a square number) equals the number on the screen (still a square number). I know it's not what the person who came up with the question intended, but it's still true.
0 likesReplies (1)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
1 likeI still don’t really understand the question “also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers” maybe that’s simple but I’m confused
1 likeI learned about the pythagorean theorem plenty, but never in this way. That stressed me out a bit. The 3, 4, 5 thing I see in the comments; never heard of it.
0 likesAm I the only one who was confused the first time I read the question?
1 likeEducation will never be as expensive as ignorance.
777 likesReplies (14)
Troll Master fuck geometry to be exact, everything below that is ok
6 likesExactly!!
1 likeFirst Class Experience
0 likesFuck calculus
Geometry is a piece of cake
@Mr. Sarcastic Nah Calc is easy. It's literally all derivatives, the algebra itself is argue is the hard part.
7 likesI hope you are not serious... No one should have to know something stupid like that.
4 likes@Mr. Sarcastic fuck no. Geometry is shit. Volume, space, length bullshit. Give me algebra, ANALYTIC geometry, calculus
1 likeIve Mc Fallen
0 likesI don't know what fuckin type of geometry you guys are doing
But by parts integrals with partial fractions are assrape
Then again i am a second year so i don't know much
@Mr. Sarcastic What? Integration by parts and partials aren't that bad. TBH the only hard pieces are when trig is involved
0 likesWell this video is just one cherry-picked example, what percentage of the population even plays this
2 likesAlso you can learn this not at school
It is not just that but Math is the most disliked subject in school while subjective literature, which I hated because I couldn’t understand what a book was talking about, is well-liked.
0 likesDude I haven't had anybody ask me about this stuff In YEARS. I still know and understand what square roots are but It took me a bit to refresh my memory as i was rereading the question. I drop emails into folders on a computer for a living. Square roots don't come up a lot in daily conversations. I'm not ignorant I just haven't had any reason to think about this stuff because I haven't had a practical reason to use it and most of the ways in which I try to educate myself in the present pertain to history and political theory. Don't assume 'ignorance' is always the case.
4 likes@galactic85 but he is a college student, is on hot seat and has all the time in the world to think.
0 likes*Laughs in student loans
1 likeI mean the question was kinda confusing though. It didn't make sense to me until comments pointed it out.
0 likesAlthough I'm real good at math and I love math riddles, I have to admit that I got this one wrong... It never even crossed my mind that the sum might be of two DIFFERENT square numbers, so I kept counting and couldn't find the right answer... Finally I figured it had to be 16, since neither one of the rest fit at all, whereas 16 could be the sum of multiple 4s. I assumed they asked the question wrong and I didn't even consider that I might've not known the answer... So yeah, I'm pretty good at maths but obviously don't even know the basics LMAO
0 likesReplies (1)
It's simple - without even knowing the Pythagorean Triple. The squares in order are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, and 49. If you take any smaller square from 16 (eg 9 leaves 7), it doesn't work. Same applies to 36 (25 leaves 11, and 16 leaves 20), and 49 (36 leaves 13, and 25 leaves 24). The key is not overthinking it...
0 likesBro that's literally the first Pythagorean tripley
0 likesah i forgot what a square number was for a moment then i remembered.
0 likesAnd the audience applauded. 💀
0 likesThere are three types of people in the world. Those that can do maths and those that can't do maths.
0 likesThe moment, when the audience applauses after discovering that it was the wrong answer, had left me in splits.
90 likesReplies (2)
But part of the audience got it right, they had to clap their hands.
3 likesNot "it," "they."
0 likesThe game show producers should have made C be 25. It would have been really funny.
0 likesMaybe he thought (-4)^2 + 0^2 = 4^2, with -4,0 < 4. However the question asks for the comparative sizes of the square numbers themselves. In this case, 16 + 0 = 16, and 16 certainly isn't smaller than 16, so it doesn't satisfy the conditions of the questions. The simple example 9 + 16 = 25 is all that was needed
0 likesI would have got it wrong too. I thought the question was about the root of 4 and 9 which has 2 and 3. I read the question wrong and would have lost too but for different reasons.
0 likesReplies (1)
Yes, this question is a lot about terminology.
0 likesIt can be enough that you have forgotten exactly what "square number" refers to in order to get confused, since "square number" is a clue that all numbers are the results of squaring integers.
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
0 likesYou know off the bat that you are dealing with a number found by adding two smaller numbers. A "square number" is a perfect square, so you need to go through the list of perfect squares up to 49. These include:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
Looking at this set, the only number that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
If you know the Pythagorean theorem, this problem is much easier because the 3-4-5 triangle is one of the most well known triangles in mathematics. Basically, the sides are related because:
3^2 + 4^2 = 5 ^2
9 + 16 = 25
The only difficult part of this question is remembering the basic math concept behind it. If you were not good in math, or if it's been a while, then this question will obviously stump you.
The audience probably didn’t see the word “sum”
1 likeSad day for humanity, sad day...
56 likesReplies (1)
***** I want to believe it was a troll audience too. XD If he just took some time he could have worked it out in his head, but he was too laaaazy. I prolly woulda trolled him too, even though I normally wouldn't. lol
0 likesI can forgive him because he was under stress. But the audience embarass me.
0 likes16+9=25. That's a type of equation which can be found by trial and error method. I can't believe the audience got that wrong🗿
1 likeI legit read the question wrong and would've got it wrong as well
0 likesAny guy who has made one question on Pythagoras theorem knows about 3²+4² = 25 as it's literally the most common question.
0 likesQuestion was difficult to understand. But hey, Pythagoras Theorem.
1 likeLol the studio audience.
16 likesthis is not about 'not knowing math'. it's about the number of possibilities the person has to account for against the pressure of the ticking clock.
0 likesRight off the bat I know it's 25 as 3^2 +4^2 = 5^2 is a classic and repeated example of Pythagoras theorem
0 likesOh fuck, I thought it was 36. Well, I failed my maths GCSE.
0 likesomg this was so painful to watch
0 likes3-4-5 triangle is literally the first thing you learn in anything that involves trig
BRUH THATS LITERALLY 5TH GRADE MATH IN BRAZIL
1 likeAfter asking the audience: my faith in humanity has been lost forever.
49 likesIt was only till 7^2. He could have just use pen and paper to list everything out even if he didnt have it memorized.
0 likesMe thinking about this question if the game was taking place in Singapore. Literally everyone over the age of ten would get it in less than 5 seconds.
0 likesWell he clearly not that dumb cause more than half the audience also picked the wrong answer on a basic math problem
1 like345 is the most used Pythagorean triplet. Pythagoras's soul suicided after watching this
0 likesI would fail this 😵🧠💀
0 likesA week ago I wrote a program that finds Pythagorean Triples like 3,4,5 just for fun. Yet when I first saw this question, I was like, "Wow! That's a pretty tough question!" and started brute-forcing my way through all the possibilities of answer (A). Until I noticed that 25 was one of the answers. That's how stupid I can be at times. On the plus side, it's positive proof that I'm not a robot.
191 likesReplies (14)
wouldn’t it be better to look for an easier way before brute forcing your way through? usually math questions try to flush out a concept
1 likePythagorean triplets are 2m, m^2-1, m^2+1 where m is any real number, right? I did it 5 years ago and I'm not sure
1 like@tehnoobleader a^2 + b^2 = c^2 when a = m^2 - n^2, b = 2mn, c = m^2 + n^2, where m and n are positive integers, m>n>0, and one of m or n is odd, and m and n are coprime. It's called the Euclidean method. It generates all primitive (non-multiple/mutually prime) pythagorean triples. Your method also gives non-primitive triples, eg. m=3 gives 6, 8, 10, which is 3,4,5 doubled. Thanks for the additional info, I didn't know about your algorithm.
3 likes@GeorgeSmiley77 A. Euclids formula* Euclidean method is something completely different. B. Your formula is wrong. There are no parenthesis and m and n are squared independently. This is also only true if m and n are coprime
1 likeWell I guess I'm a robot , solved it in 5 seconds
3 likesYou are a robot with an anti-Turing-Test algorithm built in.
0 likesWere you concerned that you might be a robot?
0 likesYou guys must be rich knowing all this
2 likes@up is down No there are only 21 possible results might as well just start with the smallest number and work your way up than try to devise a method. If you were trying to find a way to replicate it quickly and reliably then you might want to devise a method.
0 likesOr if there were much larger numbers / larger set of numbers
@Mickey P ik but im saying no math question is designed to be solved by brute forcing through all the possibilities (unless theres only a few) so its more prudent to look for like a pattern, something in the question, and stuff like that first
0 likes@up is down brute forcing is actually the better, if you do not have the quick solution and the case is simple like this, it would take just a few two or one digit addition to check everything, so fast and simple, and have the benefit of being mindless, so less chance of making a mistake.
1 like@tehnoobleader yes, you are right, where m is any natural number
0 likes@up is down In this case brute forcing is pretty easy, as long as you bound it properly beforehand: I did the same.
0 likesThe highest square in the question is 7, so you're only dealing with 6 and below. You can also discount 1, since you know intuitively that none of the squares are within 1 of each other. 5 numbers leaves you with 10 combinations at most, and you get the answer long before that.
Same
0 likesIt's not necessarily the math that it hard, it's the wording. People get sum confused with product and that's how I ended up with A. The question should have been "what 2 numbers square numbers added together equal to one of these square numbers?"
0 likesA lot of people in here try to boost their own egos by mocking people who find math difficult, but they apparently cannot comprehend the following simple facts:
2 likes1.
It is harder to think clearly when you are under pressure
2.
People can forget math concepts;
EVERYONE forgets math concepts if they don't regularly work with them
3.
Some people suffer from dyscalculia, which makes math a lot harder for them than for other people, even when they get a lot of tutoring
4.
Some people have negative experiences with math, and decide that it is pointless for them;
you cannot motivate people to learn something if they don't see a value in it
Audience clapping after giving wrong answer, maybe they were told to give wrong answer.
2 likesI think it would be hard for anyone to do math under these circumstances, honestly
6 likesReplies (2)
If your grade in math from your school days is below average or your IQ, then yeah, you'll definitely have a hard time.
0 likes@ave lanDDer $100 has you filling your pants with shit before the second question.
0 likesWorded math problems are harder then just solving an equation for x
0 likesactually all the answers are right
28 likesReplies (9)
Tell me why you think so, and I will tell you why they aren't all right.
4 likesMuffinsAPlenty If you use irrational numbers, for example 16=((12)^1/2)^2+(2)^2. The question should have said perfect squares.
7 likesLuke Michalowski I see what you're saying and completely agree!
0 likesLuke Michalowski "Square number" means the same thing as "perfect square." A square number is defined to be an integer which is the square of an integer.
18 likeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
ur wrong luke haha
8 likesMuffinsAPlenty ok, thanks my bad
7 likesCan't you say 4^2 and 0^2, same with 5, 6 and 7
2 likesAnother good suggestion, but that also does not work.
5 likesThe reason is that they used the word smaller in the question. The two numbers you are adding together must be smaller than the sum.
So if you were using 4^2 + 0^2 for example, one of the numbers you are adding (4^2) is equal to the sum (16), not smaller than it.
Trust me, game shows like this never get that technical, although it's good reasoning if you do get it wrong.
2 likesIt's basically Pythagoras triplets (3,4,5)
1 likeLooks like 70% of the audience needs to recite multiplication tables again.
0 likesno way this many people in america didnt pass 5th grade in high school.
0 likesIn his defense, his brain had probably melted and the question isn't as straightforward as a random trivia question.
0 likesReplies (1)
this is very straightforward.
0 likesUnderstanding what the question meant took me a bit because I read it wrong
0 likesCongrats to him and to the audience! You may not know math as long as you want, but here you can find the answer by attempts of summing two integers and obtain the result!
26 likesI'm so stunned watching this!
> Question is revealed
0 likesMe: 25
> Answer choices are revealed
Me: Yeah, that's about as complicated as they could make that on a game show for a general audience.
Pen and pencil to decipher the question. 25=x^+y^ it becomes a lot easier. Imo the question is harder then the answer under this type of in the moment pressure. Just one man’s opinion. Shout out to all you math wizards 🧙♀️ ❤
0 likesme who got 16:
1 likeedit: SUM, FRICKING SUM!!! NOT PRODUCT!!! I THOUGHT MY TEACHER WAS BEING OVERDRAMATIC WHEN SHE SAID IT MATTERS!!!
It’s just another way to say a^2 + b^2 = c^2, the Pythagorean theorem. A classic example that I remember was 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 => 9 + 16 = 25.
0 likesCould be worse. He could've been tricked into exchanging a dollar bill for 60 cents.
0 likesQuestions wording seemed fine to me. Solved it in a heartbeat thanks to school.
427 likesReplies (9)
'Muricans don't go to that communist school shit.
25 likes+NonTwinBrothers Not sure what school you went to if they never taught square numbers....
12 likesJust saying there are more important things
1 likeCancer Police did u never learn what 3 squared and 4 squared is?
1 likeyeah same
0 likesxXBombs_ AwayXx I got it confused, I thought it had to be the same number, but when I realized it could be different numbers, I easily got the answer
10 likesxXBombs_ AwayXx Hey your the guy from TWOW!
0 likesxXBombs_ AwayXx same lol
0 likesxXBombs_ AwayXx so easy
0 likesEven if he doesn’t know the Pythagorean theorem, he can quickly determine the answer. With 16, it’s obvious the only numbers squared to consider are those less than 4 - none of those work. Then 25, consider numbers squared less than 5 - that’s 4 and 3 - that works and no need consider anything further.
0 likesThis one had me at first, but not for the usual reasons. This is actually kinda devious because it you implicitly assume that the question means that the 2 smaller squares must be the same but they actually don't. 25 = 16 + 9 = 4^2 + 3^2 is the correct answer. 16 and 36 look tempting because your brain wants to think that 8 + 8 = 16 means that 8 is square or that 36 = 18 + 18 means that 18 is square, but neither are.
1 likeThis show : exists*
0 likesAmitabh bachchan : our show
I was thinking it all wrong for a moment but I get a lot of 3 squared and 4 squared in Math equal to 25.
0 likesThey have the audacity to sit there and clap
0 likesTwist of plot, Audience clapping means they wanted him to lose
202 likesThat question was meant to fail him. I can feel it. I am a university student, and it still threw me off.
0 likesReplies (2)
Same here;
1 likeit is easy to confuse things and get lost in the jungle of "number" and "square" descriptions if you don't read the question carefully, and remain calm.
Same, but english isn't my first language so I didn't really understood the question properly in the first place.
0 likesI just remembered triplets that used to make a right triangle the most common one 3,4,5 as 3^2+4^2=5^2
0 likesAudience might have thought 4 square + 0 square =16😂
0 likesIt’s 25 because 9 + 16 = 25 which is the same as 3² + 4² = 5². This problem is based on the idea of Pythagorean triples. It can be found by putting integers in the formula a² + b² = c². Another example of Pythagorean triples is 6,8, and 10. 5, 12, and 13 is another Pythagorean triple.
6 likesReplies (3)
Great point about the triples Laura
0 likesDo u feel better about yourself now?
0 likesTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
0 likesa^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
m = 3 and n = 1 gives (6,8,10), or alternatively m = 2 and n = 1 above with k = 2, simply doubling the (3,4,5) ;
m = 3 and n = 2 (k = 1) gives (5,12,13) etc... infinitely many can be generated this way in seconds
Moral of the lesson:learn you squares
0 likesI lost brain cells watching this
1320 likesReplies (18)
Don't pretend like you had any to begin with
70 likesDivineAtheistWannabe hahah my man I’ll give you that one
26 likesReally? I think I might have gained a couple.
2 likesYou know you do lose brain cells every freakin minute.
2 likesOn the contrary, I now feel like I have more brain cells than 78% of an American audience
6 likesI was amazed especially by the way he didn’t take any time to try and figure it out. And even then, if you’re going to ask the audiance’s help, at least give them some time to figure it out before you ask them...
0 likesThe question was extremely poorly worded, it took me 3 minutes to finally realize what it was actually asking
4 likesi lost brain cells because i wasn't sure what the question was asking me. i also thought it was 16 too. turned out i was wrong. its not until meredith viera explained that i kind of got it. then it took me like another 5 to 10 minutes to like nearly completely get it.
0 likes@TheShermanTanker
1 likeBruh, the question was clearly understandable
@Tom Huggins You are an idiot.
0 likesJust list the square numbers, so instead of thinking 4 squared + 3 squared you simply think 16 + 9.
1 likeRaniaIsAwesome I hear ya buddy🤣
0 likes@TheShermanTanker Nah, the question was worded fine. "Which square number is also the sum of two smaller square numbers." There are way more complicated worded questions in Mathematics, this pales in comparison.
2 likesWhat is up with all these people claiming that the question was poorly worded? Which part of it was not clear?
1 like@Ateeqa Zaid Actually no you don't
0 likes@Static Chimera no it isnt, "which square number" is redundant because all options are squares. also if you dont know the 3-4-5 fact, and you can only think without a pen, it will be harder.
0 likes@lx I don't see how "which square number" is redundant. Yeah all of the options are squares but that's precisely why they said "which square number". If one of the options wasn't a square number then "which square number" wouldn't make any sense since it implies that the only options are square numbers. It's like if the question was worded with "which numbers" instead, it would still be redundant because all of the options are numbers. The argument doesn't really make sense.
0 likesAlso I recognise that the question is harder if you don't know about Pythagorean triples, but that's not my point. My point is that the question was worded fine. I am biased in thinking how easy the question is though since I study maths, but it's precisely why I study maths that I can say that if you think THIS question is poorly worded, you would not survive in any kind of Maths course.
@omp199 Well, there's probably a lot of overlap between people who struggle with this extremely simple math problem and people who also struggle with reading comprehension. It actually makes a lot of sense that we observe this behavior here. YouTube comments also attract lower IQ individuals.
0 likesThat's why math is important if you study math then you might get 16,000 dollars
0 likesPoor buddy could never call himself a genius anymore.
0 likesI thought in first instance they meant 2^2 =4 and 4^2 =16 so that’s why i think so many people got it wrong
0 likesTook me 15 seconds but 25 is right. The problem also is that in that American version of the show there is a much quicker time limit
0 likesHow the hell did this guy get on Millionaire when he can’t do basic high school math?
1 likeThe question almost got me, and I majored in math. I thought the question was "which of these numbers have a square root that is also a squared number" or something to that effect. 16 is a reasonably wrong guess since it's the only number here which fits that description. I think we use "squared" number instead of "square" number so I immediately thought they were referring to the square root when they said "square number". Could just be a language difference though since English isn't our first language.
47 likesReplies (20)
Same. I have a Masters degree in mathematics, and this almost got me because I read the question in such a lazy manner.
14 likesSum
3 likesEnglish is not my mother language and I still cannot understand how this question can be misunderstood. I've read many claims for how it's "worded poorly" and don't relate to any of them.
15 likesSame lol this question was just phrased badly
2 likes@AboodXD dude you’re just smarter than everyone else sorry, how can we compete with pure genius like you. Please, have pity for us poor mortals, oh great one.
8 likes@Tretch nice sarcasm, but I'll pass on playing along.
9 likes@Tretch He's right, the question is crystal clear, I didn't realize at first that you could relate this to the 3-4-5 triangle, so it took me a while to figure out the answer, but the question leaves no room for mistaken interpretations.
8 likes@AboodXD We need a genius like you curing cancer, not commenting on youtube...
1 like@AboodXD It isn't poorly worded, however the definition of a square number is different in other countries, and I believe that's what's causing issues.
4 likes@BuxOfficial how so?
4 likes@AboodXD in french, a square number is just x². The equivalent of a squarw number in english would be something called a natural square number
1 like@BuxOfficial that changes nothing as all shown numbers are so-called "natural" square numbers, which should let you deduce what kind of square numbers they are talking about.
5 likes@AboodXD Hi! Just wanted to let you know that people can misconstrue this question due to being pressured or distracted. That includes this magna graduate with a 1.25 in Geometry who watched the video while brushing her hair. The question may not have been worded poorly, but it can still confuse someone under the right (or wrong) circumstances. In the contestant's case, it just had to be a timed game show. 😅
1 like@BuxOfficial Yeah, of course it's x raised to the power 2.
1 likeAnd if x could be anything but a whole number, such a definition would be meaningless, as it would overlap with all real numbers.
lol im dumb as shit and i still got it in like 3 seconds 3-4-5 is like the most basic shit ever and i knew the question was going that way just when i finished reading it
0 likes@TheFinalChapters smart.
0 likes@Anonymous Viewer It's not timed
0 likesIt´s one of the most fundamental things in math and the question is as basic as it gets (it´s pure and simple in mathematical form). Hard to understand that someone who majored in math cannot get the question. It´s like saying "I am a mechanic, but can you please tell me what a car is?"
0 likes@T. D. Stunning. Masters in maths and you don´t get a primary school question. The level is really low these days.
0 likes@BuxOfficial No, the definition of a square number is the same in EVERY country. In French, a square number is n² where n is an integer, but that´s also the definition in the US (do not get mistaken from the posts here where idiots say that 2,5²=6,25 is a square number because it´s not). The terminology might be different since different countries have different languages obviously, but the definition is the same all over the world.
0 likesImagine this would not be the case. Then maths would not work.
50 percent of the audience was trolling him. It takes all of 2 seconds to rule out a there's literally only 3 possible smaller squares than 16.
0 likesIt's okay, the host doesn't even know what a square number is.
0 likesAnd this question came in my math Olympiad paper for p3 and I got it always right
0 likesIt is beyond me how can anyone fail at this. Even if you don't remember the well known (3,4,5) Pythagorean triple, you can simply check all options. He didn't even try to compute some small squares and add them. Don't know what the host was sorry for. Not her fault that the guy and the audience can't compute something any 8 years old should be able to compute.
0 likesWhy did I think the numbers must be the same, why am I so thick sometimes?
0 likesPythagoras 2500 years ago would answer immediately.
159 likesReplies (6)
dude a kid can no need for pythagoras
4 likesBartooc pythagoras 2500 years ago didn't understand english so nope
4 likesAll 3 of you should just shut up and add a picture on your profile
18 likesCaffé Mocca English didn't exist 2500 ago..
0 likesYes because hes smart lol
0 likesJavier Dextre There is none for most users, but I still thought it funny as hell because all three of them were green with different letters
2 likesIt all boils down to Pythagorean theorem, 5^2 = 4^2 + 3^2
1 likeThe issue isn’t math. It’s actually misunderstanding what the question is asking. There is a reason 50% of the audience chose A. That wasn’t random.
1 likeI also got it wrong and had a face palm moment.
I thought it was asking which which of these squared numbers also happens to be the square of another number.
If I hadn’t just assumed that, and written it down, I would have realized I was wrong.
The question was actually asking x^2 + y^2 = Z (the sum of two squared numbers)
I think if they had phrased the question a little differently, more people would have gotten it. But, there is nothing wrong with the question. It’s fair. It reminds me of the axiom: “read the freaking question.”
Everyone gets stuff wrong. That doesn’t make you stupid. You are only stupid if you refuse to learn from your mistakes.
81% сложно вспомнить математику.
0 likesOk so like thinking about it for literally 10 seconds tells you it can't be 16. The only squares before 16 are 4 and 9 which sum to 13. He was under a lot of pressure though.
0 likesAint no way im gonna multiply two digit numbers
0 likesSo: the simplest example of a right-angled triangle when they teach you about sine / cosine / tangent and right-angled triangles in maths. As soon as I started trying to find two that worked, “square of the hypotenuse” popped into my head when 16 and 9 worked for 25.
66 likesThe moment I saw the question I thought of 25. Simply because 3 4 5 triangle. Finally trigonometry helped me in something
0 likeshe's not alone not knowing the table of multiplication, 70% of the audience and even worst on AOL have given a wrong answer ! the question is why this guy were chosen to participate in the game????
0 likesMoral of story : Always read the question right.
0 likesI don't think this is a "can't do math" issue. It's more of a "don't comprehend the question" issue. I thought the answer was 16 as well. In fact, I was dead certain it was 16. The problem was I completely misunderstood the question.
1 likeOf all the answers there, 16 is the only one that the square root of is also square, which is what I thought it was asking for some reason. Even though 4 + 4 != 16, I simply eliminated the other three answers because 5, 6 and 7 aren't square. It didn't even occur to me that they would be the sum of two different numbers.
If it wasn't a word problem (or if it was worded more mathematically), I'd probably have put my thought process in a more correct space. For instance if it read:
"If x + y = z, where x, y and z are all square numbers and x and y are both less than z, which of the following could be z?"
They wouldn't ever word it that way, but that's how I would understand it better.
Replies (2)
Comprehending questions IS a quintessential part of "doing math".
0 likesJust like understanding the positions on the chessboard finding the right moves IS crucial for playing chess (well), or like correctly identifying symptoms of a disease IS a quintessential part of practicing medicine, etc.
These are not two separate abilities as you imply. Interpretting problems is a fundamental skill here.
If you're misunderstanding abstract concepts and statements to begin with, then how on earth could you take it one step further and competently reason about them (which is what math is) : )
@vibovitold
0 likesYou are forgetting that the guy in this video had to answer this question under a lot of psychological pressure in the middle of a game show, and thus was much more likely to get brain fog than people who sit in the comfort of their own homes with unlimited time to answer it.
wow , that was easy even if you know a little bit about Pythagoras theorem. lol
0 likesOk I understand with the pressure you won't be able to think straight but the audience tho👎
4836 likesReplies (49)
Travis Sonnylal yeah more votes on 16 wtf
79 likesEither they're scripted to troll the participant, or they didn't understand the question.
243 likesThe moment I saw the question I was thinking Pythagorean’s Theorem, which is almost always taut using 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. I’m at a total loss as to why the audience got it wrong.
153 likesYou're giving people too much credit. Most people won't know this.
44 likesStephanie R when you take high school geometry, the instructor uses it as a classic example of Pythagorean’s Theorem, because of the simplicity of the numbers.
54 likesIts common 6th grade stuff. The audience is indeed stupid
64 likesKaelum also works with 7 24 and 25
4 likesToxic V there are many cases where the sum of 2 squares is equal to another square, but only 25 is correct amongst the answers shown.
20 likesAll of you guys are forgetting they are Americans
56 likesIn India a 7 year old normal guy can solve this
15 likesjust square root each one...
3 likesI love math and I can't understand this, lol. Thought it was asking about square roots. oh well, I was good at math in middle school lol
3 likesok, I get it now, lol
0 likes+ADARSH - so why it was not India to put the man on the Moon, invent smartphone, etc?
9 likesalex rusnak Because less money and Americans take smartest people throughout the world
3 likesBut unless you already know that it's impossible to work it out in that amount of time.
0 likesWtf man simple maths answer is 25= 16 + 9 LMAO AUDIENCE!!
0 likeswell 16 = 4^2 + 0^2
8 likesMurica!
2 likesSuperNerdGamer007 Smart answer
0 likesTravis Sonnylal wait this could be because im not and english speaker but isnt it A? Like 16 square is 4 and 4s square is 2???
1 likeTravis Sonnylal oh nvm reading deeper in the comment section i understand now
2 likesStephanie R 3,4 5 these are called triplets in india i don't know what they r called in the west called. They r a few more triplets btw.
0 likesToxic V Let me tell you an interesting fact-
6 likes3²=4+5=9 and 3²+4²=5²
7²=24+25=49 and 7²+24²=25²
9²=40+41=81 and 9²+40²=41²
this pattern works for all odd numbers.
Travis Sonnylal IM SAYING... ppl apparently dont know how to square small numbers and thats scary
0 likesI'm from the U.S. and I got it right. Heck, I'm from Florida and i got it right, and our education system is even worse than most of the rest of the country's. Mostly I'm just wondering what logic had most people guessing "16."
1 likeYea wtf they dont know that simple question.
0 likesExactly!!
0 likesTravis Sonnylal american audience
0 likesI'm terrible at math too..so I understand his situation but the audience!! How can this many people be wrong? Well..I guess being in a South Asian country I can depend on the audience for math questions despite not being strong at math myself. But still shocked to see them wrong!
1 likeI feel hella dumb, i was accidentally looking for PRODUCT instead of sum
2 likesI am more surprised they used AOL.
0 likes16 is sum of 3 and 4 square
0 likesWHAT THE FRIDGE?
0 likes@we dem boyz No.. given the question, 7 24 25 doesn't count, because it says the sum of smaller *square number*.. does 7 and 24 a square number? No! it's should be 9 and 16..
0 likes@benchijs No.. the question says the *sum of 2 square number*, which is equal to another square number..
0 likesYeah
0 likes@Zombie Salad
0 likesThat's why we have a show called "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"
@Rish then acc. to your logic.. It should hv been 0^2 + 1^2 = 1 and that was obliviously not in the option so the question would hv been wrong to start with! Show some smartness bro!
0 likesThink straight? You’d have to be special needs not to get this
0 likesMurica
1 like@Rish True, but the question says two SMALLER square numbers. So 4^2 can't be used.
0 likesTravis Sonnylal yeah
0 likes@Kaelum They got it wrong most likely because they didn't understand the question. Most likely they thought the question asked which square was composed of smaller squares. This would incline them to think 16 because 4*4 and 4 is composed of 2*2. They confused what a square is versus what a square root is.
0 likes+Aaorn 4+4=8, not 16. The question does not ask for the "product," it asks for the sum, you stupid piece of shit.
0 likes@SkillUp Gaming You dumb piece of fecal matter. He was saying that the audience got it wrong because they omitted the "sum" part out of the word problem. If you was to think of it like that then yes the answer would have been 16. The main issue here is the amount of people who problem for get that sum means addition. Honestly the question is worded extremely shitty.
1 likeWell, we know the general public HATES math with a passion!
0 likes@Adarsh Raj a 4 year old..
0 likesLook at the comments dunking on the guy
0 likesWhich of these square numbers (which equal c^2) is equal to the sum of two smaller square numbers a^2 + b^2.
0 likesI think the difficulty was understanding the English of the math.
I made the mistake of thinking of the product of a * b instead of the sum of a^2 + b^2 as well. Oops 🙊
I'm not sure what's worse, that he couldn't think up some small square numbers and try adding them together or than so much of audience was wrong...
0 likesReplies (1)
Definitely the latter. One guy under pressure being wrong is not comparable to 78% of the audience being wrong.
2 likesWhy does he represent every middle school back bencher🤓
0 likesI got this answer within probably half a second once the choices were revealed and somehow a large majority of the audience in both polls got it wrong. I don't claim to be a math whiz by any stretch though I'm decent at it, being an engineer and all, but it blows my mind that something that came so instantly for me, a majority of the people in the audience got completely wrong. 😆
0 likesReplies (2)
@Muzammil Khan 16 + 16 = 32
0 likes@Nam Vu yes you are correct, i thought it was 36 😅
0 likesThe damn audience never went to school
0 likesthis is more of an english comprehension question than a math question.
24 likesReplies (2)
shh dude. Let the people who figured out the answer think they are smarter than the entire USA combined. Don't burst their bubble.
2 likesNo. It's an unambiguous math question.
0 likesWow, unfortunately for Ryan and the country, I'm pretty dumb, but still know the sum of the square numbers 9 and 16 = 25!
0 likesIf you're reading too quickly, you might fall for the trap and go with the square number that's the product of a squared number (2^2)^2 = 16. As long as you aren't too nervous and can concentrate enough to see it's about the sum and understanding the question appropriately, it's a pretty easy question as long as you know what a square number is. The thought process could be as simple as "2 squared is 4, 3 squared is 9, 4 squared is 16... oh it's B.. 25 because 16 +9 = 25"
0 likesThe question was worded properly. There is literally no excuse.
2 likesGood thing this is an American show, they saved themselves a lot of money
0 likesThese questions were not even in my school exams (asian)😂
0 likesI don’t blame him, I misunderstood the question at first too. I was thinking of which one was the the square of it’s squares (if that makes sense). I thought it was 16, like 2 squared is 4, and 4 squared is 16. I got it once she explained the solution but I can only imagine what he was thinking plus the stress of $15k and being on tv
781 likesReplies (43)
You got the question wrong from the "square of it's squares" hence you got 2 squared then squared again
36 likesIt was actually "which square is the sum of smaller squares" which can be answered if you just list up all square numbers less than 49(biggest in the choices so no need to think something bigger than this) which would be : 4, 9, 16, 25, 36
Now you just need to add 2 out of this, and look for any results that also shows in the choices
yeah, everyone is blaming the audience's incompetency at math, but I'm so so sure most of them are just bad at reading the question properly before choosing.
45 likesI did the same thing. I was like oh, 16. DEFINITELY think that question could have been worded differently
53 likes@Genesis Dorsey the question was quite explicit. If people failed to understand it, that’s their problem.
45 likes@John Smith No it actually wasn't that explicit. You could technically make sense of it either way. It's a game show. It's meant to trip people up, especially under pressure.
33 likes@Sarah it was definitely explicit. Unless you don't know what a square number is, what a sum is, how to count to two, and what "smaller" means.
48 likes@James Svachaagreed
5 likes@Arvie Talaugon who in the fuck memorizes square numbers
0 likes@Tsrenis who says you need to memorize one?
25 likes@Tsrenis all you need to know is that squaring a number means multiplying it by itself, unless you don't know how to multiply (that's the only time you'll need to memorize)
10 likes@Tsrenis As long as you know that a square is when a number is multiplied by itself, you don't need to "memorize square numbers". As long as you know that one very basic thing, it wouldn't be too hard to just brute force this going down the list of smallest square numbers like 1*1, 2*2, 3*3, 4*4, 5*5. Just by doing those 5 easy multiplications you'd realize that 9, 16 and 25 are all square numbers and since 9+16=25, that 25 is the correct answer.
4 likesHe didn't misunderstand the question, he just listened to the audience, and the audience was wrong
2 likesits, not it's
0 likes'Sum' is defined by addition. Perfectly understandable question.
8 likes$15K, but also a potential million.
2 likes@Michael Anderson why?
0 likes@Sirus "I was thinking of which one was the the square of it’s squares"
2 likes- its; possessive, it's contraction of it is
- only its fits grammatically
"The sum..."
4 likesThe question clearly said sum. It was pretty explicit. The only thing that was potentially misleading is whether or not the two numbers were identical or not, and then you realize they had to be two different numbers when you work it out.
9 likes@Panda Power I guess our teachers were right when they told us that properly reading the problems helps giving the correct answers XD
5 likesI think if he knew what the question meant it would have been easy for him. I suppose its meaning didn't jump right out at him and then anxiety took over so he just went with the audience. Sometimes the problem isn't figuring out the math itself but in poor comprehension of what's being asked. Or average even since the bloody audience let him down! 🤦🏼♀️
4 likesThis is exactly what I thought too.
0 likes@ElvenIvy07
7 likesI think this event shows that a large chunk of the general public does not know that "sum" has a precise definition... meaning the result of "addition".
I agree with those who say this question is 100% clear.
If it's not clear to an individual person that "sum" means "addition", that's not a problem with the question.
@Sarah English isn’t my first language and I can state with 100% confidence that the question was very explicit. I can also state with 90% confidence that you have the literacy of a 6th grader and the math skills of a 4th grader.
3 likesIt was very clear
1 likeI misunderstood it as well. There's something about the "two smaller square numbers" that doesn't seem quite right. I'm not sure why though.
1 likeThe wording of the question is weird.
4 likesWhich of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers?
@inkbery That is even scarier.
0 likesHe didn't talk out any reasoning or ever say which way he was leaning (assuming this wasn't edited out). I am convinced he probably didn't know what a square number is, and that much of the audience didn't either.
0 likes@James Svacha Which clearly a lot of these commenters don't.
0 likesSame that question was worded trash af I though it was asking me what 2 options had even square numbers
1 like@Sarah 4^2 is not a sum.
1 like@Arvie Talaugon actually 16 would be true then? 4+4+4+4. doesn’t say the squared are different or there are only 2
0 likeshere is nothing wrong with the wording of the question. You literally could not word it any clearer.
2 likes@Sydney Carton someone wants you to call him smart
0 likesThank goodness I’m not alone. I’m sure the audience thought this as well.
0 likesYes it make sense as you are an American too, nothing new.
0 likes@Sarah It's even sadder when these kinds of questions pop up in important exams.
0 likesI'm not from the US, so I wouldn't say I'm the most fluent. But even so, I've seen countless memes of English tests disguised as math questions.
These questions make me use abacus on add math.
@James Svacha No, it actually really wasn't. It's not about simply knowing those things, it's about being clear with what they're asking. Again, it's designed to trip people up under pressure. If you're not under pressure and you're asked the question, you would see it more clearly for what it is. I'm just so sick of shaming people, especially when it comes to math. It creates an unwelcoming atmosphere that doesn't allow people to explore why they might have got something wrong and to try again. That's exactly what this video is trying to do. And you're one of the people reinforcing its message.
1 like@James Svacha the way people think of square numbers is the number multiplied by itself. So they're going to get fixated on the definition of a squared number without realizing that oh yeah, I can mix and match those smaller square numbers (16 + 9) to come up with an appropriate sum (25). Again, as I said before, it's meant to trip people up and I think OP did a good of explaining how they got it mixed up and someone else explained the solution in an actual helpful way instead of just saying "it's pretty explicit" like you. Like cool, you added literally nothing to the conversation.
1 like@James_&_Anna_Burns the sum of two square numbers, you are making the sum of four, idk why y'all can't read something so simple
0 likes@Sarah if you cant read thats your problem lol, the question was pretty clear
0 likesYeah if it was "which of these squares is the PRODUCT of two smaller squares" it would have been 16.
0 likes3²+4²=5² smallest positive integers (3,4and5) of Pythagoras theorem 😀
0 likesDifficult worded question. It’s more of a word game than a math problem
0 likesThe question is phrased a bit weirdly, I also thought it was 16, cuz I thought at first it meant like, the root of 16 is 4, the root of which is 2, so 2 square numbers…
0 likesReplies (1)
It's clearly asking for a sum of squares, not a product or a root of a root.
0 likesYou know, it would have been nice if they said that the square numbers weren't the same. So confusing.
0 likesWell crap, I got it wrong too hahaha
0 likesAnd people complain about foreign people stealing jobs
1290 likesReplies (27)
lol then why are these foreigners going to the USA rather than staying in their home countries?
39 likesWhy would you go to the land of idiots lol
Because the land of idiots has the best economy
206 likesThis is simple 7th grade math. There is something seriously wrong with these people if children in middle school have the intellectual ability to answer this question. The question is asking about a pythagorean triple. I’m an American and I’ll admit that the majority of the American population is retarded. Yet, they complain about foreigners stealing their jobs. The reason being is that we’re not even a top 20 education system in the world. Thus, most Americans just complain while doing nothing to change this problem except for voting in other idiots like Trump.
83 likesNYGiantsFan7198 the current nationally ranked education overall has nothing to do with the national economy. Its more related to the consequences of EOI and the politics of the international economy
7 likesNishC300 Because the land of idiots is where they can survive.
1 likeNishC300 , Because usa prints money.So it doesn't matter how much they print.If gold was the reserve currency instead of usa,you beautiful country would look worse than poo.
4 likesNishC300 Ask yourself, would you rather stay in your home country with people as smart if not better or just simply go to the land of idiots and take their job
28 likesThe people of USA were not dumb during world war but after 1980 s they became as retarted as fuck
18 likesPranav Jaguste I would go and steal their jobs.. if they had any.
1 likeLmfao
0 likesIt's not real this was made to make fun of Americans saying we're stupid y'all do realize that
0 likesIndia is a country of genius
4 likesNishC300 you know one thing, average people being dumb doesn't mean that intelligent people are not in the US. Competition is very low in US. Anybody can earn something doing part time. Many countries don't have this luxury so the people have to work hard, study Maths and Science and hence this was so easy. Average American people bcz of so less competitive nature don't do any study and hence this dumb
4 likesNishC300 its bcoz of the presence of a small percentage of people who use their brains lol
0 likesBecause in the land of idiots, they have less competition to deal with. Their home country already has too many smart people to compete with.
3 likes45superscott you need smart people from other countries? How about srinivasan ramanujan and cv raman
2 likesxD
1 likeIf you talking about tech jobs, obviously the audience doesn't work in tech so your comparison is irrelevant; if you talking about farm jobs why would math knowledge even matter?
0 likesNishC300 Why? Because it's so much easier to get ahead when the population can't understand 7th grade arithmetic.
1 likeActually.. they deserve Trump 😂😂
6 likesAmericans get triggered. Let's face it, their education system is shit. Even they complain about it.
2 likes45superscott Hate to break it to you. But both of the people you mentioned dropped out of school
0 likesfirst i was surprised as to how could a nation be so dumb enough to elect the fat orange trump into the white house. But after seeing the IQ level of the audience here, im honestly not that surprised anymore...
2 likesBecause they keep indulging in entertainment and prolonged adolescence that they refuse to grow up and aim at betterment. As a result, the foreigners keep taking those available jobs.
1 like😂😂😂
0 likesNot to mention that they have to compete not just against foreigners for high-paying jobs, but also against artificial intelligence.
0 likesLol most people in your country are illiterate, when you have to learn someone else's language to live you are their slave..
1 likeIt's a lot easier when you simplify the question to, "Which of these is the sum of two square numbers?"
0 likesReplies (1)
Then technically all answers would be correct since 0 is also considered to be a square number. The "smaller" part is very much relevant.
0 likesAccording to the logic of some people in here, we might as well say that anyone who doesn't know the name of the 30th element in the periodic table must also "suck at chemistry";
0 likesseriously, that would be pretty much the same kind of logic.
love how the audience was wrong too
1 likeJust because he got a question wrong(in which all answers are technically right anyway) doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand math.
0 likesThe audience is either trolling or they didn't understand when they could use Pythagoras Theorem in real life.
1 likeThe fact that the AOL crowd, who are on a freaking computer, still couldn't figure this out is very depressing
31 likesoh i totally interpreted the question as “which of these squares is the square of another smaller square” and was thinking 2^2=4 and 4^2=16
1 likeKeyword:The ＳＵＭ of two smaller square numbers.
1 like5^2 is already gonna equal 25 so the sums of square numbers can't be greater than 5. 1 doesn't amount to shit and 2 doesn't add up so your only options are (3^2=9) + (4^2=16) or (0^2=0) + (5^2=25).
It's been almost a decade since I graduated from the school system and the fact the audience can't remember something I was taught in the 4th grade is just sad. Like I'm sure people probably don't use it in their everyday lives but c'mon. At least try to retain something.
And then they have the audacity to clap afterwards ☠️
2:25 says it all
0 likesTo fit the difficulty of this question, the choices should at least be: A. 529 B. 576 C. 625 D. 784
2 likesReplies (1)
can remember (7,24,25) as a triple from the back of my head, so D. Can also see B + 49 = D
0 likesI guess in his mind he only lost about $12
3 likesI’m doing my major in math and honestly it took me like half a second to answer that ques bcuz the 3-4-5 triangle is like the most used thing in any math course lol
356 likesReplies (25)
Same here! Lol!!! But I know this because of school.
6 likesEshita Goel I usually find trouble understanding questions, so I'm not by any means a smart person, but I knew the answer for this question in half a second as well.
32 likesIt's weird that people found trouble understanding this question, although after contemplating, it does seem like a stupid question.
@UnHoly Most people misread it to be which number squared happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers.
13 likesShut up
0 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likesSame, physics major here
0 likesMe 2 bro, i was looking comments kinda' this
2 likesa 7th grader here in India knows that😂😂
3 likesYa i always come across it in physics too
0 likesYup
1 likeSame
1 likeWhen I heard the question I started thinking, well 25 would be too obvious so what's the next square that's a sum of two squares after that?
5 likesThen I saw B 25 and now I'm like, shit, how does the audience not know that?
Yup, we learn this in school when we're like 13 or 14 years old, the 3-4-5 triangle.
0 likesYour parents must be so proud 👏👏👏
0 likesWell can you explain it to the rest of us?
0 likesAnother reason would be that you are indian😂 so math is easy for you
1 like@Vince It's a Pythagorean triple. Basically, Pythagoras's theorem stuff. If a right-angled triangle has the two smaller sides as length 3 and 4, the hypotenuse is always 5. That's because of Pythagoras's theorem, which is c^2 = a^2 + b^2, which is literally what the question in the video is asking, which square number (c^2) is the sum of two smaller square numbers (a^2 + b^2). If you don't know what Pythagoras's theorem is, I suggest looking it up, as explaining it here would be a bit too long.
0 likesSo...what's your point? As a math major in college you should be ashamed you don't know the 8-15-17, 33-56-65, or 20-99-101 as quickly.
0 likes@Charles Petrizzi bruh what is your point? I never said i didnt know these, i only said what i do know. maybe you should be ashamed of the way you talk to people :)
3 likes@Charles Petrizzi ...what?
1 like3-4-5 triangle is like my name
1 likeYou don't need majors to know this, this is middle school maths
1 likeLow level trig maybe lol
0 likes@Mohammed Haris And yet there's only one Indian I can think of who's ever done anything significant in mathematics/science. Let me guess, people from other countries robbed their ideas. right? 🤦♂️
0 likesYah in JEE it's the fav triangle 37°, 53° XD
0 likesHere is another question kind of along the same lines: Which of the following integers is both the cube of an integer AND the sum of two distinct squares of integers? A: 8 B: 36 C: 27 D: 64
0 likesThe answer is D: 64.
Note that 4^3 = 64 and 0^2 + 8^2 = 0 + 64 = 64.
Here’s an explanation of square numbers for anyone who got this wrong: A square number is a number that is the result of another number times itself(AKA a number squared, AKA a number raised to the power of 2). 4*4=16, so 16 is a square number and 4 is what is known as the “square root” of 16. 3*3=9, so 9 is a square number, 3 is the square root. 16+9=25. 25 is the result of 5*5. 1 is an interesting number because it is both the square and square root of itself. Numbers like 1, 9, 16 and 25 are also known as “perfect squares” because their square roots are whole numbers with no decimals. Basically meaning every number has a square root, but only certain ones are “perfect” like those mentioned. The perfect-squares are simply referred to as square numbers and vice versa. This is pretty basic math to be real with you, if you’re not a young kid you should definitely know this kind of stuff; it will broaden your horizons. Hopefully it makes sense now, and you can see how simple the logic behind it is.
8 likesReplies (2)
My reason for it was because of the phrasing i admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 and also . The show sometimes itself flips product and sum around too so all the other people saying but that is a product dont get that you cant gurrsntee it will be phrased like that on the show. Others also point out that 4+4 = 8 and 8 +8 equals 16 so it seems in some sense the phrasing of the question and ironically peoples math skills themselves likely increased the questions difficulty. This is i think a problem in math classes too tbh. People who are good at analytical math can have difficulty in applied mathmatics due to teacher inserting information or over rounding or other aspects that affect their accuracy and the student who are better at math ironicslly may be more likely to not pass those classes more due to ironically taking in the information that was given to them too
0 likesTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
0 likesa^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
I'm not good with math but the answer is easy it seems.
0 likesIt's a shame because it's quite easy. He could've won this.
0 likesI thought it meant that the "two smaller squared numbers" would be the same not different numbers
0 likes16,000 - 15,000 = 1,000 quick maths
521 likesReplies (10)
Michael Jay - Value Investing Are you Asian ?
4 likes@Tony Stark ohh, he definitly Asian
2 likes@Tony Stark what do you mean by this?
0 likes1+1 = 2
4 likesAre you high or something?
1 likeHe's talking bout the prize money, he started with 16000 lost 15000
5 likesDamn son. Those are some big numbers. I didn't even know those and you just subtracted them as if it was nothing. You some kind of science whizz?
8 likesMaffs
2 likesQuicc maffs*
1 likequick poverty
0 likesI did not totally understand the question but still got it right. 25 Sq = 5. 1 Sq = 1. 2 Sq = 4. 1+4=5
0 likeslegit america might be the only country where the audience would get this wrong. The audience is usually pretty on point and this is ultimately such a simple question that it should be a lay up for the audience to majority get it right.
0 likesOk ngl this took me a bit of while to think of. I understood the premise of the question
0 likesIt doesn't need for high math knowledge to know the answer of a question like this
0 likesWell I knew the answer right away but I didn't even get that $1000
0 likesEven as a math teacher, this question can be very difficult in this situation.
754 likesIt's very hard to remain calm and think properly under stress. Also, the wording of the problem makes it somewhat challenging to interpret properly.
With all of this going on, now you have to mentally run through your perfect squares (1,4,9,16,25,36,...), keep track of them, and find two of them that you can add together to get one of the answers. Extremely difficult under pressure for most people!
Replies (74)
You should only remember about Pythagorean theorem and Egyptian triangle.
48 likesand how did he manage to answer the other questions, which is probably harder than the pythagoras triple question?
26 likesBut 0 is also a square so aren't all the answers right? (0+16, 0+25...)
24 likes@joku tyyppi The word "smaller" prevents those cases from being correct.
105 likesEverybody in comment sections are geniuses though.
25 likes@joku tyyppi you are right bro, someone get the money back to the poor dude
1 likeThe wording of the problem is completely fine.
26 likesEven with the wrong answer "that i had got myself" and the right answer in front of me... i still had no idea till i read your post how to get the correct answer. Everyones so high and mighty about this one.. question is worded to mess people up
10 likesit's not that difficult. all you have to think about are the ones that are smaller than the original value. for example, 5^2 is 25, so the sum cannot be bigger than 5^2, eg. 5^2+4^2 or 5^2+6^2... you can do that by deduction, testing it on 16, 49, 36 and so on
11 likesno lol this isn't some complicated question. anyone should be able to solve this with a saw slowly coming at their neck.
18 likesplease look at an engineering entrance exam paper in india and get back to me
9 likesYeah but there's no time limit. It'd be hard to do in 5 seconds under stress but you can literally take all the time in the world to count it out. Not only could you get the right answer, you could spend an hour double-triple checking and showing all the other answers are wrong too. Dude literally has no idea what a "square number" is.
18 likesNah it's definitely not as hard as you're making it.
8 likesI guess you are the teacher that students complain about lmao.
@Dhruv Pawar please look at the employment rate of engineers in your country and get back to me
2 likes@ND_IRISH_FAN
3 likesThat is the proper reaction to this video - it's just too bad that a lot of people seem to take delight in mocking other people instead, and look for any chance to do that.
They’re all small numbers. Just start with 1, subtract it out from the four choices, and test to see if the residual is a perfect square (ie 1 + 15, 1 + 48, 1 + 35, 1+24). Repeat test consecutively until both numbers you’re adding are perfect squares. And that’s your answer
4 likesNot really - there are only 6 square numbers less than 49 ...
5 likesYou must be a very lousy math teacher then. Like my 5th grade math teacher that asked me to figure out the first 20 digits of pi by dividing 22 divided by 7 via long division and then was surprised when her 10 year old student had to give her a lesson on what rational numbers were.
6 likes@ultimate cheese whopper The wording was kinda tough or maybe it's because you keep thinking of squares and such so you keep asking yourself which 2 SAME numbers can be added in order to get that number , idk what made me think that way but just putting the word perfect square in the first requirement probably made me lean that way
3 likesAs A guy with PhD in Maths I disagree.
1 like@VojvodaVuk really? Because I feel like the only problem here is English not math
3 likes@Juska Why would english be a problem for a guy who speaks english?
6 likes@VojvodaVuk Because I feel like not mentioning that they're 2 different numbers makes you lean towards looking for the summation of 2 similar numbers, just because it's kinda the thing you start thinking about after looking for a perfect square you keep thinking you need similar numbers.. maybe it's just me but yea the entire audience knows how to sum they just thought of
1 like1)its a perfect square, so 16 works
2)8+8 are similar and gives 16
And probably missed smaller in their rush for looking for similar numbers that add up to it
@VojvodaVuk But then again I'm not a native English speaker, still I feel like the problem was just the wording not the problem itself as we would solve it easily if it added "different"
1 like@Juska first of all, 3, 4,5 triangle is like the first thing you learn in school when learning Pythagoras. When I read first 3 words I knew exectly what question is going to be. Second, same integer cannot be squared , summed and then equal to another integer sqare.
6 likes@Juska well, we are not all smart. The question does not infer that numbers should be same. I dont know what similar numbers are.
1 like@VojvodaVuk Didn't you read it all? When I said same I didn't mean the same number from the first requirement, again I meant this answer: 16
1 like1)Perfect square of 4² ✔️
2)The summation of 2 similar numbers gives 16 (8+8) ✔️
Also the 345 thing isn't really the issue here because if you're looking for something entirely different because you though you need 2 similar numbers then it wouldn't matter
@VojvodaVuk And the question doesn't require it, but when you read it in a hurry you're more likely to think so due to the word perfect square before it, making you lean towards it, unless specified otherwise or taking some time you could very well think it's just a number that 1)is a perfect square 2)can be taken from the addition of 2 of the same number
1 likeThat's why the majority voted 16, it's not by luck, but by suggestion
You know mental suggestions? Like that little trick when they say a few things then ask you quickly for a Vegetable starting with letter A and you say apple like a dummy?
@Juska you keep using similar and its wrong. 8 and 8 are not similar, they are the same. Still the question doesnt say same numbers, but only smaller numbers. And still it says sum of smaller square numbers. 8 is not perfect square.
4 likes@Juska hurry where?? Do you see a timer??
0 likes@VojvodaVuk I meant same not similar, it's said as similar because "smaller" is there and that's where people get confused and read wrong, get it? Also 8 isn't a perfect square we know that, it's not a requirement for the 2 numbers you add up to 16 to be a perfect square themselves, the answer is 16 the explaination is 4² and 8+8 (8 doesn't need to be a perfect square, 16 does, in our wrong perception of the question, get it?)
1 like@VojvodaVuk And yea isn't the audience supposed to answer it quickly before they just put up their answers? They can't possibly wait for everyone, plus wrong perception is often just a hit or miss, you don't go back to reread if you already think you got it all right
1 like@VojvodaVuk for a way shorter explaination
1 likeI basically thought this:
A perfect square that is also taken from the sum of 2 similar(smaller) numbers
Solve this, see what I meant? If u read it smaller you get 25 (25 is a perfect square of 5 and can be added from 9+16), if you read similar, you get 16 (16 is a perfect square of 4 and can be taken from 8+8, did it say the numbers have to be perfect squares too? If so I didn't notice that's why my requirements always were 2 only).
@VojvodaVuk oh yea it says from square numbers, welp, attention lacking but still reading smaller as similar makes you lean to the 16, cuz it makes you exclude the odd numbers already since it's not often allowed to use decimalized numbers so odd ones would be out
1 like@Juska I know how you interpreted the question. I just want to explain why it is stupid to think like that. First of all, watch the video. It says sum of two smaller perfect perfect squares. And even if it didnt say that and it was what you thought, why would answers be perfect squares. It could have been: Which of these numbers is a sum of 2 similar numbers? And answers: 16 and 3 odd numbers. But you need to agree that how you interpreted is kindergarden level question.
1 like@Juska you think audience is sleeping? Rhey have the whole time before they were asked to think.
2 likes@VojvodaVuk eh people don't necessarily solve every question from start without being asked to but even so reading it, but that doesn't change the main concept that the problem the encountered is English reading similar instead of smaller and so excluding odd numbers already
1 like@VojvodaVuk it's not interpretion but a reading problem, similar and smaller are 2 words that are well similar lmao, the question is in any case a kindergarten problem, just depends on what you saw, since the two words are alike, but one is more likely to be seen, by mental suggestion, that's why the audience majority said 16 specifically as the mental suggestion worked on them
1 like@Juska Similar numbers dont exist they are either same or different. In any case host reads the question out loud
1 likeDifficult my ass 😂 you have 6 numbers to run through and try to add up. It also helps that it’s 3*3 + 4*4, so they are consecutive. You should get it on the first few tries.
3 likes@VojvodaVuk Oh I thought no one really would listen if its a math problem because it's often better to read and write with maths, but I guess some do
1 likeAnd the "similar or same" issue are by all means English/wording related we know that 8 is same as 8 but we could also say similar as we aren't often accurate with wording, much like the people who use "literally" all the time, to many people words like similar and same are interchangeable even if grammatically they are not and it would be imperfect wording, by all means it's exactly what I'm saying, the problem you're stating here is our English more than our math
If it was a math problem you would ask them the requirements separately and they'd answer wrong
@Juska First of all, if you are going to be a crowd in a quiz show, I highly doubt you went there to play with your phone. From the time this guy asks for crowd to vote, about 10-15 second passes. That is not enough time for any question to be read, along with all answers and then answer it. So if you are there and you are not paying attention, what are you doing then?
1 likeI have yet to see an english person confuse same and similar. Contrary to your belief, if they read similar instead of smaller they would still pick squares of 2 and 3 because they can say that 2 and 3 are similar because there is only 1 difference.
This has nothing to do with grammar, saying "Literally" is grammatically correct. The word you meant to use is semantically. Using "similar" when you mean "same" is a semantical error, not grammatical.
@joku tyyppi smaller
0 likes@joku tyyppi yes
0 likesYou say that under the delusion of math teachers being competent at math. Unless you are a college professor. But I have outright contempt for K-12 math teachers, my 5th grade teacher having asked me to calculate the first 20 digits of pi by using long division to calculate 22 divided by 7. Yes that actually happened, no she was not joking, she thought pi was EQUAL to 22 over 7.
0 likesI only take interest in math topics as a casual amateur and I instantly remembered without calculating that 25 is the smallest square that is the sum of two squares. Ignorance is lack of care to know stuff.
1 likeWho remembers squares? You can easily do it on the spot till 12 atleast.
0 likes@SuperMrgentleman yes exactly
0 likes@Juska if you are not reading the question properly then it's your fault. The question was framed perfectly
2 likes@Ayush Mishra well I didn't say it's their fault perse, I was saying it's the English/wording/reading comprehension that's making people do this mistake rather than math, because the math required is just knowing simple stuff that I knew, but I already excluded the correct answer due to reading similar instead of smaller, And then I elaborate that it reminds me of mental suggestions, maybe it wasn't one but still the entire problem here was reading not math
0 likes@Juska most people don't know the actual definition of square number and that's the problem. Some mess up with the SMALLER part and a few the sum part.
1 like@Ayush Mishra I mean yea I can't really assume everyone read it wrong and excluded the correct answer right away- just what happened with me
0 likes@Juska "just what happened with me" - Look, this is the problem with your argumentation.
0 likesPeople here keep telling you that it's not a phrasing issue. With all due respect, just because you didn't understand the question doesn't mean that others didn't understand it either. Nobody except you confused smaller with similar.
The wording of this question was unambiguous and not linguistically challenging. The problem is that too many folks have no clue when it comes to math, or at least mathematical terminology if we want to be charitable.
True...but for $15,000 do the damn mental math. LOL...If this was timed, OK...but he had all the time in the world. The numbers were low enough (16, 25, 36, and 49) to do that math in your head. I don't think this guy knew what a "square" was. He seemed completely clueless.
1 like@joku tyyppi The question says 2 smaller numbers but If you consider your statement 0 is smaller number but 4, 5,6, 7 aren't smaller than itself
0 likes@Mychael Smith It's not bad. The problem is that most people learn math in school and then put 90% of it away and quickly forget it. Like the definition of "square number." It has something to do with square roots, one might guess, but beyond that most Americans don't know and can't just Google the term during a quiz show like we can. And for those who do use math enough to know this term off hand, try answering a question of like difficulty that depends on knowing the definition of some literary term pertaining to poetry.
0 likesDo you know what a perfect square is? n*n. So start at 1x1=1, 2x2=4, 3x3=9, 4x4=16, 5x5=25. Now just decompose the numbers of each answer. Can't be 16, 36, or 49. But 25=16+9, Bingo. Final Answer.
1 likeWhy can't my school teach maths this clear to understand 😖
0 likes@Jens Raab I didn't say it's for sure this I'm just saying if I read something that looks very close to the word that was written, maybe others did too, is that really a further stretch than not passing 1st grade? I don't even have an argument I'm just giving input as to why I was one of the people that got it wrong, and similar vs smaller are honestly alike so its possible, but not everyone has to be the same, they'd have to put their input too, for all we know it could be because my first language isn't even English but it just reminds me of an old trick with mental suggestions too so idk I thought maybe that's why I read it wrong and was giving some input thats all
0 likes@Juska Frankly, yes, that would be a stretch, and I'm fairly certain it is because English isn't your first language.
0 likesI'd bet a lot of money that not 50% of the audience misread this, especially as the term "similar number" doesn't have a meaning in math as has been pointed out to you several times.
Also, the host read the question!
I'm good at math but from experience I know that many people are not. A shockingly high number of people are not. I've worked in a financial institution for a while and there was a scenario where our department and another department had to both greenlight certain transactions before they were initiated. There was a threshold, measured in percentage, beyond which we would want to initiate these transactions for our client. The problem was that our department said, the threshold is this amount plus x% but the other department had the upper threshold as baseline and subtracted that percentage. Anyway, I tried to explain my new line manager that there are situations, not very frequent but they occurred more than once while I was there, that the transaction would be triggered even though it shouldn't have been, or not triggered even though it should.
The issue if you add a certain percentage to a value, and then you subtract the same percentage from the new value, the amount is not the same than the one you started from. For example, you add 1% to $100, that gives you $101. If you now subtract 1% from this new amount, i.e. $1.01, you'll end up with $99.99. The higher the percentage, the more striking the discrepancy. We operated with buffer percentage of 5%.
So, I was trying to explain this, I even made a graph which showed the areas (amounts) in which that discrepancy caused by the different approach of our departments would result in an unwanted action.
This line manager, younger than me, fresher out of school, didn't get it. She talked to me in a condescending way in a manner that showed that she had no clue what I was talking about, just trying to get rid of me.
Then, a couple of weeks later, a trainee who, like me (and unlike her), had been to university joined us for a while and I chatted with him and mentioned this issue. He understood immediately.
Like I said, I was shocked that you had folks in a finance institute where we moved funds worth dozens of millions, sometimes well beyond 100 million dollars, would not understand basic percentage calculation.
So given that, I absolutely believe that an audience in a quiz show would be mathematically illiterate rather than conflate two very simple words of their native language with very different meaning.
@Jens Raab ah, I guess past experiences shape what we believe is more likely to happen, you remembered that while I remembered reading errors, attention deficiency and a past mental suggestion trick, welp.. I find it more believable that they don't know how to do simple stuff now that you mention your experiences
0 likes@Juska The thing is, this is only one of maaaany times that I noticed that people are not on too solid mathematical ground. And usually, they will readily admit that math isn't their thing. Which is fine. There are loads of areas where I am crap and others are much better.
0 likesI just related this anecdote because I found it especially shocking, and I think if this occurs in financial institution, just imagine how the situation must be when numbers aren't that important.
Frankly, I don't even fault the audience. I wrote a comment under this video saying that "Ryan's biggest mistake was to ask the audience for a math question". I wouldn't trust a random audience with math questions at all (based on my experiences).
Of course, since Ryan also didn't have a clue he did what appeared to be reasonable, trusting the majority. The better approach would have been to use other lifelines.
@Dhruv Pawar Epic 🤣
0 likes@Dhruv Pawar epic 🤣
0 likesSawm tluanga Knowledge is useless, logical thinking is the soul of our brain.
0 likesThis. People really underestimate just how much pressure can mess you up. The question itself was pretty trivial, but I'm pretty sure I've messed up even easier ones before under bad circumstances. No, the ones who really should have done better here was the audience.
0 likesIt's the wording that hung me up. Wasn't exactly clear what it was asking for, so couldn't create the formula. Once the formula was presented though, it became simple. And yes, I was never great at English, the whole sentence structure stuff never made sense in theory, though it did in practice.
0 likes@Stay mad :) i-
0 likes@Mychael Smith The reason I referenced the wording is that many people have learned the term "perfect squares" as opposed to square numbers. If the question would have been worded perfect square numbers, it may have led him in the right direction while he was stressing out.
0 likes@VojvodaVuk Very had to believe that someone with a PhD refers to "Maths" and doesn't even know to capitalize the word English within its proper context.
0 likes@ND_IRISH_FAN First of all, what a stupid stereotype. Because I have a PhD I always have to speak like I am Queen of England? What else, can I go to the gym, sir? Because you know I am a nerd with a PhD and I should not go and work out? Second, I really don't care how I capitalize words, I have PhD in Maths not in grammar. And you assume that I am an english speaker, why would I have to know all the rules. I know people with PhDs in many other fields who cant speak english. Shows that you are probably not a teacher because you would have respect for those who pursue the field you work in.
0 likesI mean, you only have to go through 4...
0 likes@AcidPants Which square number (among A,B,C,D) is the sum of two smaller square numbers? What is so difficult about the wording. It´s whyt teachers ask in 3rd grade.
0 likes@bowlchamps37 actually all they ask now in 3rd grade is if you want to transition or are non binary.
0 likesEveryone should know about the 3,4,5 triangle and Pythagoras's Theorum. Elementary school maths.
0 likes2nd root of 25 is 5 , and the sum of two square root that it is less than it is 3²+4²=5²
0 likesIt was college week! Did you hear that?!
0 likesLet's hear it for the U.S. public education system, ladies and gentlemen!
0 likesHoly smokes, this was uploaded 15 years ago? Wow...
1 likeOne thing for sure now he'll remember that question for his entire life 😂😂
25 likesI'm going to pretend I knew the answer all along and definitely didn't go "Hang on, it's 16 right? That's a square?"
4 likesReplies (4)
Are you below the eight grade?
0 likes@The Ultimate Emeralds No I'm just retarded.
1 like@The Ultimate Emeralds to be fair the question was worded very weirdly
0 likes@GalacticLaser to be fair the question is phrased completely fine. It's your comprehension skills which are beyond trash
0 likesIn Finland, this life line works very differently: all audience members who think they know the right answer stand up, and the consestant picks three of them.
0 likesReplies (2)
The Finns are a strange breed.
0 likes@Jar Jar Sphinx We are, but I think that particular rule makes perfect sense.
1 likeI almost had a stroke because I thought the question was asking which of the square numbers from there was also a sum of 2 other square numbers FROM THE 4 OPTIONS
0 likesHe : I am under a lot of pressure that 3²+4²=25.
0 likesMeanwhile : people younger than him solving differential equations.
Replies (1)
Meanwhile, People who study logic and semantics realise the question was ambiguous and technically all answers were vacuously true
0 likesI don't know, the boy should feel so bad, 50% of the audience doesn't know math either
1 likeI would've given her the answer without even hearing the 4 choices
129 likesReplies (26)
+waawamellon But what if any of the answers wasn't 25 but instead, say 169, 289, 625 or 1681? At that point you whould have looked a bit silly. =)
23 likesIf you meant that you whould have answered before hearing all the 4 choices I totally agree with you that it would have been nice.
gurkfisk89 25 would more likely be common knowledge and so it's more likely to be a choice than any of those higher ones, but yeah
1 likeI don't remember if I meant 'before hearing all four' or 'before hearing any'
+gurkfisk89
3 likesit's 625 because it's 225+400 :P+waawamellon an answer, you mean
0 likes+Jeremy Zhou
1 like15^2 + 20^2 = 25^2
Joshua Williams Yeah :D
1 like(It's the same as the Pythagorean triple 3, 4, 5, except multiplied by 5. 3*5, 4*5, 5*5 = 15, 20, 25.)
but but... how do you know if it's A, B, C, or D?
0 likesLapischicken oh
0 likes+Lapischicken He could just say the number..
0 likesAcidGamingHD Gaming, Tutorials and More! but there's tons of numbers that are the sum of two smaller squared numbers xD
0 likes+pcakes That edge...
0 likesIt's so sharp... It cuts so DEEP.
+gurkfisk89 169 = 5^2 + 12^2 and 625 = 15^2 + 20^2, so then this question wouldn't really have a unique answer.
2 likes+supermarc45 you fucking geek
0 likessupermarc45
0 likesIt might not be a unique answer, but given that it should be workable for all levels of maths, 25 would be a practical assumption.
There are many answers. 100 is also one of them.
0 likesAnything which is the sqare of the 3:4:5 ratio would work.
0 likesi.e
3,4,5
6,8,10
9,12,15
12,16,20
etc.
+Andreas Lambropoulos No because 100 isn't the sum of any two square numbers. Sum is the result of addition, not multiplication.
0 likesRebecca98463
0 likesYes it is. It is the sum of 6 squared and 8 squared -> 36+64=100
Joshua Williams You are correct. I will go hide in a corner now.
0 likes+Rebecca98463 lol atleast you admitted your mistake.
0 likesYeah, it's a basic sum I forgot about. He/She proved me wrong so the only thing to do is concede.
0 likesRebecca98463 whats funny is that you even explained what a sum is xD
0 likesDakiller1243 Well I thought the person was an idiot so I felt compelled to explain what a sum is then it was proven that I'm the actual idiot.
0 likes+pcakes Could have been 169 too though coz 12^2 + 5^2 = 144 + 25 = 169 = 13^2.
1 likeMe too question 1 is SO easy
0 likesI thought everyone would. Then I watched this video.
0 likesalso a pythagorean triple, 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
1 likeits not a math question its testing observation skills, the word 'sum' changes everything
0 likes"bish 2 nights of hotel and food plus flights rental cars and gas cost me $1000, what you mean at least I won $1000?"
0 likesInterestingly, A is the sum of 2 cubes (2^3+2^3).
0 likesBro I did that in like 2 minutes. Funny the graphs showed A LOL. It’s such an easy question how did he not get it. The people made fools of him.
0 likesThe problem is easy, very easy, the wording is complex, which is probably why question is for $16,000. They must have picked all sorts of dropouts and handed them the devices. Meredith was a great host.
206 likesReplies (38)
They picked Americans. That's why they failed. Not even the wording was complex.
38 likesI wouldn't say it was complex, it just required a little focus.
2 likesThe wording is super easy "happens to be" = "is". So what is really hard about this?
3 likes@Xinping Donohoe Every single American is bad at math huh. Nice generalization. Maybe thats why we have 6 out of the 10 best schools in the entire world for mathematics ;)
14 likes@Antares1997 I'm just glad you didn't say 10 out of 6.
0 likesMy point is that, on average, Americans seem to be rather fatter and stupider than other Western nations.
I guess they should have picked you for the show instead.
0 likes@Antares1997 You seem to be pretty naive. First of all, the assumption that Americans are dumb is obviously not true for Harvard or Princeton students. Just like not every Trump voter is an idiot, but most of them. And 2nd, most of the top universities are top because of foreign personnel. Americans with a degree are in the bottom 10%, so yes, even among graduates, they are pretty bad.
0 likes@Antares1997 93% of Americans report experiencing "math anxiety"
3 likesThere's nothing complex about the wording lol, there's literally only one logical way to interpret this question
3 likesNea you're a drop out
0 likes@Kamran Dosanjh that’s cause we have the balls to admit it, obviously
0 likes@Xinping Donohoe That's just racist. Pick a random audience from just about any country and they likely would have struggled with the wording.
2 likes@Cameraman Matt India, Andorra, Wales, New Zealand, Eswatini.
1 likeThere's your list. Now how shall we conduct this?
@Xinping Donohoe You choose, there'll be confusion anywhere.
2 likesI’m from south asia and this wording is not even complex like how can a native find such wordings harder than us lmao. Although, I would agree about the music being too intense and pressuring. This man sure became anxious, no wonder he thought the majority of audience was correct.
4 likes@pixa1z ah good
0 likes@pixa1z yeah lmao imagine knowing English and still cannot understand what I, a non-English guy seem to think is a pretty clearly worded question. If you cant read these types of wording maybe math isn't for you since math always is to the point
0 likesHow is it complex?
0 likesThe wording of the question is weird.
1 likeI'd reword it to:
Which of these numbers is the sum of two squared numbers?
@Shintei then all your answers are correct by default coz 0 exists and you didn't put a comparison condition
0 likes@Shintei no, you forgot to mention that the numbers themselves are also square
0 likes@Shintei Then you can say 16=4^2+0^2 ; you have to say that they are smaller indeed
0 likes@Xinping Donohoe The numbers themselves do not matter since we don't need such information to find out the answer. The wording is unnecessarily complicated.
0 likes@Jimmy Neutron Yep, you are correct.
0 likes@Mokshit Sati Yep, my mistake. As Jimmy Neutron said, I need to add the word "smaller", which corrects my sentence to: "Which of these numbers is the sum of two smaller squared numbers?"
0 likes@Shintei but the point of the question is to find a square that is the sum of two squares. If you remove that the number is square then you've removed half of the gimmick. Without that sight gimmick it's simply a too easy question.
0 likes@Xinping Donohoe The point to the question is to find 2 smaller squared numbers that add up to one of the answers.
0 likesThis question is easy in term of maths, so, I suppose this isn't really a maths question but more about understanding bad and confusing sentence.
@Shintei yet the gimmick is, as I said, that they are square numbers that make another square number.
0 likesIn fact, it's actually easier the normal way because, assuming they received an education, they should have heard about Pythagoras' theorem. If they don't think anything along the lines of a²+b²=c² and remember the most classic of classic triangles, the 3-4-5 triangle, then they weren't going to get it.
@Xinping Donohoe I doubt Pythagoras' theorem or the triangle is necessary here. All I did was just squaring the numbers and add them together.
0 likesThough, I must admit it that I have taken way longer to understand the question than calculating it.
@Shintei that's on you then. It was clearly inspired by Pythagoras' theorem.
0 likes@Xinping Donohoe Maybe. Though, the wording of the question is weird.
0 likes@Shintei they can't just give away money, that's why. You have to think about it, make connections, in order to earn the money.
0 likes@Xinping Donohoe Yeah, so it is more about understanding the confusing sentence than a maths question.
0 likes@Shintei basically, yes.
0 likes@Shintei If you remove the part about the answer being itself a square from the question, you take out a huge hint that screams "Pythagora's theorem" at you. Moreover, the player would have probably started thinking at random sums of squares like 8 or 13 that are not squares themselves. I find this question to be correctly worded and crystal clear, but english isn't my first language.
0 likes@ε Choosing random number to start with isn't really a "mathematical or logical" approach.
0 likesIf I remember correctly, it took about 10 calculations to get the answer, and that 8 and 13 are also within one of the calculations. So, it is okay if someone considers 8 or 13.
I suppose the hint is the host said the player can take his time, which indicates this question can take time to calculate different combinations.
Yes, the question is correctly worded. The problem is that there are better ways to word it so most people, if not all, will find it crystal clear instead of only some people.
Maybe it's just me who finds the wording weird, but my background isn't in arts/literature. My background is physics, electronic engineering and computer science. This probably explained why I couldn't understand the question at the start.
@Shintei Choosing simple examples to start with isn't really a "mathematical or logical" approach? Really? It's the most common first approach in math at any level, from elementary to research.
0 likesI see English is not your first language. You have mistranslated the world complex, you meant to say simple
0 likesWell I actually would have gotten this one right and I don't consider math my strong suite so yay. I think the mistake the audience made was in thinking (2x2)x(2x2) when it would instead be (2x2)+(2x2).
3 likesThis video explains America in the shortest and easiest manner! I bet his answer would have been quicker and correct without lifeline had it been about guns! :D
2 likes25. 16 plus 9.
0 likesEdit: oh crap, they explain it at the end, I thought I was helping people out 😂
The square numbers are: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
0 likessomething + something = 25
The two numbers must be a square number and below 25, so the only options you have got is 1, 4, 9, and 16.
16 + 9 = 25
It sounds like most of the audience also doesn't know math.
0 likesHe would probably have answered that correctly at home, and quickly.
128 likesReplies (6)
No because it’s the same question. When taking a test, pressure doesn’t make you forget, your lack of knowledge does. This was an extremely simple question that anyone who went to 8th grade could answer. And there was not even time pressure. How did this guy pass any math class? This guy is dumb.
1 like@Isaac Swoyer what? Pressure can definitely make you blank out and forget how to answer trivial problems
13 likesOfc, the guy may just suck at basic math
@Isaac Swoyer Pressure definitely counts, idk what you're on about
4 likestake into account the time, its not like he have all the time in the world to think properly.
2 likesMaybe, but the average person really is this stupid. Just look at the polls that all slanted towards A. Pretty good sample size of there that illustrates the idiocy of people.
2 likesI doubt it, he couldn't even give a logical (if not flawed) reason for going with 16, except for that's what the audience thought.
0 likesYou're meant to take a little time a ponder the questions, its almost as if he was unable to read, or just couldn't be arsed doing a math question.
4,3 and 5. Sides of a right triangle.
0 likesUsed to demonstrate Pythagoras theorem in school. It's so easy....
His biggest mistake was trusting an AMERICAN audience to know basic math.
0 likesWhen audience is out of mind
0 likesBro this question was kinda silly you need to probably implicitly differentiate that problem to solve for 25=(A^2)+(B^2) I don't blame him for getting it wrong even though it is pretty straight forward
0 likesOnce again a simple math problem exposes the public "education" system in our country.
0 likesHoly shit, and those weren't children voting either. Those were genuine adults that have sat through hours of math lessons only to come out the other side just as thick as they came in. Jesus America...
20 likesThis question is basically asking for the square of one of three numbers in a Pythagorean triplet. A Pythagorean triplet is a set of numbers a, b, and c such that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. However, the answer is limited to being a square number (i.e. perfect square) where a, b, and c must be integers.
0 likesThe first ten whole number Pythagorean triplets are:
3. 4, 5 9 + 16 = 25
6, 8, 10 36 + 64 = 100
5, 12, 13 25 + 144 = 169
9, 12, 15 81 + 144 = 225
8, 15, 17 64 + 225 = 289
12, 16, 20 144 + 256 = 400
7, 24, 25 49 + 576 = 625
15, 20, 25 225 + 400 = 625
10, 24, 26 100 + 576 = 676
20, 21, 29 400 + 441 = 841
The solution to this problem is 25.
Replies (1)
Take m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
0 likesa^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
m = 3 and n = 1 gives (6,8,10), or alternatively m = 2 and n = 1 above with k = 2, simply doubling the (3,4,5) ;
m = 3 and n = 2 (k = 1) gives (5,12,13) etc... infinitely many can be generated this way in seconds
This explains AOL's downfall.
0 likesI said 16 at first because i thought 2x2 = 4 and then 4x4 = 16. After i noticed the "sum" of two smaller and realized, ix di. Didnt understand question, specially because is in englishg not my main language. I am tard too :P
0 likesAs some who is a math major, and has performed on stage, yall shouldn't make fun of this guy. If you don't already know the answer, this is a pretty difficult question to do on stage. There's a lot of pressure and that can prevent you from doing your best. You have 2+3+4+5+6+7=27 different possible equations that aren't easy to do in your head. It isn't obvious that 25 is the answer don't clown my man for not knowing arbitrary facts about numbers.
2 likesReplies (1)
Yeah, I use the Pythagorean Theorem all the time in university courses, and I still found this question a bit weird - it would have been better if they asked "which of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers?".
1 likeAnother more precise possible version of this question could be "which of these numbers has a square root that is a possible hypotenuse for a right triangle, where both of the legs are themselves distinct whole numbers?".
Somewhat lengthy, I guess, but it makes a lot of sense to people who are familiar with trigonometry.
I’m an engineer and got this one wrong. To be fair, I misinterpreted what the question was asking, and I get it now.
65 likesReplies (5)
I dyslexiced the math around. 3*3+9*9=36. Though I'm not entirely sure that I was firm on what a square number is.
1 likeI mean square roots and exponents sure but I obviously got something bassackwards.
It would be more unusual for an engineer to get it correct tbh.
0 likeswe all know engineers can't do math ;')
0 likesI'm only joking, Question was confusing at first glance but reading it carefully is key
Did you put all the known values on the top of the green lined paper when you worked it? ;)
0 likesI did the exact same thing
0 likesWhat an audience
29 likesThe big money is in the complexity of the way the question is presented, not the actual question
0 likesIt's not just an ordinary audience of Randoms either. These are mostly ppl that love WWTBAM and who therefore consider themselves pretty smart.
0 likesThis is what Michael Penn is trying to fix
0 likesIt’s Pythagorean Theorem. Not only that, it’s the most basic beginner level Pythagorean math equation. Three squared plus four squared equals five squared
0 likesngl I read the question wrong and thought it was asking which of these is the product of 2 square numbers
1 likeWhen I was trying to understand this question I realised that it is wrong . I am from Poland and over here we hardly ever us this " square number " term but from what I gathered a square number is an integer that got created by squaring an integer . That means that anwser B is not the only correct anwser . From what I have seen in the coment section everyone says that B is correct because 3^2 + 4^2 = 25 . This is true however A can be correct as well 0^2 + 4^2 = 16 . Both 0 and 4 are integers and the sum of them equals 16 . Looking at every example with this knowledge we can proove that every anwser is correct 0^2 + 6^2 = 36 and 7^2 + 0^2 = 49 . The question should have been formed this way : Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers excluding 0 or something similar to what I proposed .
61 likesReplies (19)
It because the question asked "smaller" square numbers. That's why u cannot have those scenerios
35 likesFor example in the case of 0^2 + 4^2, 4^2 is not a smaller square number. It's the same square number
43 likes@Tan Jun Huan Oh you are right I totally skipped this part of the question
15 likesI understand the math, but I don't understand the English.
11 likesWhat's with US math questions being phrased like an archaic literature decipher question.
@Haoto 葉音 - Anime on Piano fun fact: adding one more word to a statement could also change on how you can interpret what a person said.
7 likesAdding different between "two [different] smaller square numbers" will do wonders.
@Gumi_Twylit I don’t think you can have the same two squared numbers that are the same that sums to a bigger square anyway, so the word different is probably redundant there
2 likes@Tan Jun Huan To justify the OP, technically "Integer" wasn't specified in the question either...so any of these answers can have an infinite combination of real or irrational numbers as squares that can add to give you the answer.
0 likesExample 2.4^2 + 3.2^2 = 16
Right
0 likes@Nightmare Court Pictures Nope, it says "square number" which is a number of the form n*n where n is an integer. Note that "square number" and "square" are different things.
2 likes@Sharp Edged Well, in the context of geometry, a square is a shape, not a number. But I doubt anyone would think the question was about adding shapes. In the context of numbers, "square" is the same as "square number". It's just a shorter way of saying it.
0 likesGameshow questions are always framed so oddly
0 likesIn Poland we do call these numbers "kwadrat" which means "square".
1 like@Carson Lawler Are you suggesting that this question is framed oddly? If so, in what way?
0 likes@omp199 yes. It uses language that, though technically fine, is unlike what he would have learned in school, such as “sum of two smaller square numbers”
0 likes(At least, it’s different from what I learned in school)
I was also wondering if multiple answers are right, since I saw the term "perfect square" in other video's for squared integers. A number is not necessarily an integer, but apparently a square number is an integer squared. Else (8^.5)^2+(8^.5)^2=4^2=16, is also a valid answer.
1 like@Carson Lawler Thank you for your reply. I still don't understand why you find that language odd. How would you have expected it to be worded, if it had been a question you encountered at school?
0 likesEdit: I did find the language quite odd, myself. I don't really know why they used the phrase "also happens to be", when the single word "is" could have been used in its place. But I don't get the impression that that is what other viewers are finding strange.
@Pim Huisman it said two smaller numbers
0 likes@Carson Lawler When looking at English Wikipedia, I see a number is not necessarily an integer. The page gives the square root of 2 as example, so the square root of 8 would also qualify. Anyway, I read in a different comment "square number" is synonymous to "perfect square", so never mind.
0 likes@Pim Huisman No, since 8^0.5 is not an integer.
0 likesI know it's 15 years old but the truth is, every number has this property, its as other people said Pythagorean Theorem. So even a^2 +b^2 is equal to 16. The a and b would be floating point numbers but the theory hold true. I'd say that this question was not precisely formed.
0 likesReplies (1)
"Square number" has a specific definition in math and includes only whole numbers whose square roots are integers. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
2 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
36 is also correct because they didn’t say that the square roots of the square numbers that were added have to be adjacent to each other, so 9+16=25
0 likesReplies (1)
How could you possibly write 36 as the sum of two other square numbers?
0 likes"Welcome to America! Let me be your guide!"
0 likesThey should of had the "call a 4th grader" option; unfortunately most of us forget this math because we just don't use it
0 likesReplies (1)
I'd still expect more than 22% of the audience to be able to do basic addition.
0 likesAudience was no smarter than him.
0 likesYou immediately know it is Pythagorean, and even if you can't deduce it via algebra, you can always hit and trial it. What I find stunning is that only 30% knew this.
104 likesReplies (19)
I'm terrible at math, anything beyond basic multiplication, addition, subtraction, and division I go full Herpa derp derp. I forgot what square numbers were supposed to be and I just took a guess when I saw the 25, thinking to myself maybe it means the numbers that multiply off themselves. I was pleased to find out I was correct. x'D
14 likesAlot of sheep in the comments section get terribly butthurt one way or the other about these things, but it is what it is. People have strengths in some areas while severely lacking in others. I have a friend whose husband works in oil and brings 200k home every year and they are dyslexic, never graduated highschool, and never been to college.
It was in how they worded the question, I think. "Sum of two smaller square numbers" also threw me off. At first, I thought they meant that the number's square root had to be square numbers as well. I thought of the two 4s to make 16, not realizing that I had mixed up 'product' with 'sum.' It took me two minutes to finally make sense of the question.
12 likes@Anonymous Viewer yeah I thought the sum of the two square numbers had to miraculously had to add up (the sum of ) to one of the numbers and was thinking How's that even possible
3 likesIf they had said which number can have to square numbers that when added up can fit into the number would have made more sense quickly
@Good place Reviewer it literally said in the question "sum of two smaller SQUARE numbers", how clear it can get?
12 likesIt literally is just multiplication & addition. It’s simple. You don’t need all this Pythagorean BS everyone in the comments is rambling about. All it is is there’s only 2 square numbers smaller than 16 (not including 1) which are 4 & 9. 4+9=13 not 16 so it’s not that. There are 3 smaller than 25 which are 4, 9 & 16. Just from that thought of “9&16” you realise “oh that’s makes 25” Done ✅
8 likes@destinitra The point is that most students learn the 3-4-5 right triangle.
1 likeDoppelganger D but if you learn pythagorus theorem, you involuntarily realise triplets of single digits when you see them. You don't need to apply it, just the phrase "sum of squares" sparks it.
0 likes@Rudrodeep Chatterjee That is making assumptions based off flawed logic. If you do not use something you forget it. It is simple as that. That is why people in schools and even out of schools question why they need to learn x or y because it only comes up in rare cases unless if you work in a field that requires knowing it. Also, keep in mind that at least in the United States they cram stuff into your brain for the sole purpose of you passing a end of the year test... There is a entire comment section of people on a video who hated and were bad at topics when taught in schools but ended up getting better at those topics when learning on their own.
1 likeI bet a large proportion of that 30% was guessing too
4 likesBro stop trying to make it sound complicated this is basic stuff.
0 likestoxic not for Me
0 likesI never had to do these questions as I had locally developed classes
So as the saying goes, get rekt
@Namaste Hindustan I can tell that you probably aren't very good at English. To someone else the rules of the language are very clear and easy to remember. But for you, it's obviously a difficulty. So give other people the same understanding I'm sure you'd like to receive for your poor English skills.
1 like@Dani Tho i wrote that 5 months ago
0 likes@Namaste Hindustan Does time change the point?
1 like@Dani Tho Yeah, it is irrelevant
0 likes@Namaste Hindustan Um...no. Time doesn't suddenly make the point irrelevant. As long as what I said was relevant to what was said before it, it's relevant. What you're trying to say is you no longer care. Which is understandable.
1 like@Dani Tho are you gay?
0 likesA problem of that size is best solved by brute force.
0 likesIt would be different to offer a demonstration for an algebra exam. Where they surely require a theoretical proof instead of "I tried everything and found this"
@destinitra yeah of course that’s right but the answer is quite literally a common example used to demonstrate the theorem so it’s much faster to notice the pattern than to systematically go through every answer
0 likesBased on the pythagorean theorem my guess is that the answer is 25
0 likesone guy not knowing basic math is understandable....A whole audience not knowing the answer is hilarious.
1 likeReplies (1)
Basic math that most people won’t use in their everyday life.
0 likesclever lad good on him
0 likesI was thinking 16 is a square number that you can get from a smaller square number 2x2=4 and 4x4= 16. I bet that's what most people were thinking, 5x5= 25 but no square numbers equal 5
0 likesReplies (1)
Sum is addition
0 likesThis is a $16000 question?? 🤣
1 likeIn india these type of questions aren't even asked in fastest finger first🤦🤦
This is the video that all teachers should show their “when am I going to need this in life” math students.
72 likesReplies (3)
Yeah man, I remember after graduating high school I was getting all kinds of offers from game shows, they never really tell you about that when you graduate
10 likes@Ryan oh dam man they really should’ve. The probs with the education system.
2 likesStill useless
0 likesApparently the dude hasn't heard about the golden triangle - 3, 4, 5 - which is why it is called "golden" because the lengths of its sides form a sequence of consecutive natural numbers, the largest of which is 5. Knowledge at the elementary school level... Nobody don't have to be a math genius to know that.
0 likesThank you, American schools. You did it!
0 likesAudience clapping for making him lose🤣🤣
0 likesIf you have forgotten the exact definition of the term "square number" - which anyone can do! - then this question will be confusing no matter how good you are at math, because your overall understanding of it will have one "missing link".
0 likesWe are in an Idiocracy.
0 likesHis greates mistake was not in not knowing the math, but in thinking the general public did.
21 likesAfter all English is his own mother tongue and it isn't a tough and taxing questions to understand unless he read it properly...
0 likesit would be B right since its 16(4²) and 9(3²)
0 likesI didn't understand the question until she explained the answer
0 likesShe knew the audience was wrong. I suck at math and her body language after the audience poll just made me think the audience was wrong.
0 likesReplies (1)
Her = Meredith
0 likes.... I didn't realize it was asking to find two squares to equal the sum of a square. oh well lol
0 likes"I don't know where your head was at before you asked the audience" That was about the best hint ever. Sad he didn't get it.
55 likesReplies (1)
I dont get it either.
1 likeI have done enough pyth thm at my school to memorise this.
0 likesThis really shows how much of the American or British people are actually educated...
0 likesOne guy not knowing is no big deal, but the number of people who got it wrong in the poll is concerning
0 likesHalf of the answer is literally on the screen. As soon as you 16, then 25, your mind should already clock there's a difference of 9, and bingo! Astonishing!
0 likesAudience clapping🤪👏
0 likes🤣 It took me a minute to understand the verbiage of the question. Then once I did, I realized it didn't say they had to be the same number. That's when I figured it out. But, that would be harder under that much pressure. Lol
33 likesReplies (2)
lmao i didn’t figure that out that it had to be the same number until the question was done i was so confused bc none of them are what i was thinking. i was thinking like 25 + 25
0 likes@SincereSinister they can't possibly be the same number. This would directly contradict the unique factorization theorem.
1 likeI understood the question so that 4 x 4 is 16 and 4 is 2 x 2, while 5,6, or 7 are not a square of two natural figures...
0 likesJust think of it as finding the sides of a right triangle. 345 is a solution so 25
0 likesThis question took me looking in the comments to understand 😅
0 likesI paused the video when the question came up. It did take me a while to answer, but I did eventually come to 3^2 + 4^2 = 25.
0 likesStudy your math, kids. Key to the universe!
0 likesI wouldn’t have known the answer either (though it makes perfect sense now that I do) so I feel for him and the audience! I just wouldn’t have submitted a vote had I been there😆
21 likesthis shouldn't have been very hard. 4^2, 5^2, 6^2, and 7^2 were already on the screen. The only other choices are 1, 4 and 9 for two smaller squares than the largest of the choices.
0 likesSo 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49 -- which two of those add up to one of the others? Easy.
This is called a Pythagorean triple, not difficult at all.
0 likesBro has to teach the pythagoras theorm to a matg teacher
0 likesDidn't he know the Pythagorean Theorem? 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. 9 + 16 = 25. Nobody knew it, apparently- easiest way to do it.
0 likesI found the answer as soon as i saw the question in thumbnail
1 likeAudience claps on wrong answer
301 likeswTF
😂😂😂😂😂
Replies (3)
X_X damn! What a racist
7 likesThey are just doing what the sign says, don't read to much into it.
1 likeAmericans in a nutshell
0 likesTrusting an American audience on a mathematics question is a really bad move.
1 likethis is what happens when you believe that pythagorean and trigo will be useless in life.
0 likesdear lord... this is such a simple question how do so many people get that wrong =,=
0 likesAny sum of the sides of a right triangle squared equals the hypotenuse of a right triangle by Pythagoreans theorem: 100 = 10^2 = 8^2 + 6^2 like the 25 = 5^2 = 3^2 + 4^2 (integer multiple of 4 for 25, 100, 400, etc.) sum of all sides of a right triangle.
0 likesThis must have been American audience 🤣🤣
1 likeWhy did everyone think it was 16?
520 likesReplies (54)
Based on many, many comments, it appears that a lot of people thought that the question was asking which square number was the square of a square number. And 16 is the square of a square number since 2^2 = 4 and 4^2 = 16. Don't ask me why they thought that was the question. I don't know.
274 likesnot everyone thought it was 16 - only half the audience thought it was 16.
25 likes"happens to be the sum"
65 likes"happens to be the sum" and "two smaller square numbers" says that that is not the question being asked.
2 likesI thought it was 16, based exactly on what Muffin explained.
25 likesBut I'm an idiot when it comes to mathematics.
Wow you're so smart! I wish I was amazing as you were, SpiderCraft53 - Who also does 'Redstone and more'
97 likesBee Movie Memes I mean you are "bee movie memes"
4 likesOh, hey, it's Spidercraft, an answer Youtube gave us for a question no one fucking asked.
4 likes2 squared plus 2 squered
2 likes+GaBoKaS that is still just 8
6 likes+GaBoKaS 8 was not one of the choices.
2 likesJohn Długosz oh, yeah, dont know why i somehow though about cubes, not squesres :D thanks
2 likesI don't even know wtf the question was asking
6 likes16= 4*4 +0*0
17 likes...the sum of two smaller square numbers. You suggested that 16 = 16 + 0, but that doesn't fit the requirement that the two summed numbers have to be smaller than the result square number.
24 likesVratislav Jindra yes but could be the reason why they voted A
2 likes0 has no value -_-
0 likesdebayan sen 0 has no value. but 0 is still a real number.
10 likesSo then, we could still say that 16 could be the sum of 4*4 and 0*0, since 4 and 0 < 16.
But I guess what they wanted was a number that is both real and greater than 0 to "make sense", idk. 4^2*0^2 could still be a possible answer.
"-_-"
Berry They wanted two smaller squares. 16 is not smaller than 16.
13 likesMaybe they did:
26 likes2×2=4 and 2×2=4
Then they got confused and they did:
4×4=16 instead of 4+4=8.
RE:"a number that is both real and greater than 0."
1 likeThey wanted positive integers.
I Calarmati "sum" could mean you have to add the two number but I have to commit, this aint easy to remember ^^
0 likesBecause they are dumb.
8 likesI did it cubed and picked A too (2x2x2=8) 8+8=16 don't ask me why lol
1 likeMark Lynch I think ppl assumed it as (2 sq ) d whole sq. ... Which is 4 sq = 16 😂
2 likesMuffinsAPlenty the Fuck did they get that from lmao
0 likes***** what
0 likesSantiago Ferrari how is 16 correct. And with 4 answers, any answer will work 25% of the time...
0 likesSantiago Ferrari wow... then every answer is correct. but 9+16 are perfect square numbers arent they...
0 likesno it's not... the first 10 square numbers are, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, and 100.
1 likeRockin Robb so?
0 likesDerKeineAhnungMann The person I responded to deleted there comment because I destroyed there logic.
0 likesRockin Robb xD okay
0 likesnobudy read "the sum" part -.-
0 likesMark Lynch Because they're dumb.
3 likesmaybe because 16 is TECHNICALLY correct, because 4^2+0^2=16
2 likesKelly He No, because it says (...) "happens to be the sum of two SMALLER NUMBERS?"
1 likeKelly He no, 25 is answer bcs 9+16=25. where 9 and 16 r squares of 3 and 4 resp.
0 likesMuffinsAPlenty that'd mean that they dont believe 5 has a square root
0 likesMark Lynch maybe sqrt (9) + sqrt (7)? Sum of those numbers to 2 power is 16
0 likes***** 4^2 + 0^2 = 16
1 likeI mean that 4 is not smaller than 4 itself, it is equal but not smaller. So it's not correct.
Root of 16 is 4, root of 4 is 2. 2+2 = 4, that's why people thought it was 16, even I did. Badly written question.
0 likesRyder Washington It's not, you just didn't understand it
1 likeSeems confusing.
0 likesMark Lynch
1 likeMark Lynch They immediately associated 16 as a square number
3 likesSpiderCraft53 You.
0 likesif u do enug trigo qns u will always rmb 3 4 5 and 5 12 13
0 likesis eight, not a square. WTF?
0 likesread the question bruh. Both have to be smaller, not just one of them.
0 likesTwo smaller SQUARES! WTF bruh?
0 likesThey took the product of two squares instead of the sum. (2^2)*(2^2).
1 like9+5
0 likesA square number is not simply a number squared. It is a number whose square root is an integer.
0 likesHere’s how you solve this in your head:
1 like2x2 = 4
Subtract 4 from each option. Is the result a square number? No. In order, that would result in 12, 21, 32, and 45.
3x3 = 9
This leaves the following in order: 7, 16, 27, and 40.
No pen and paper required. Just simple square numbers and checking four options with subtraction.
Every single number up there was a correct answer because if you add itself and zero (also a perfect square), you could get any of the answers and they are all correct.
0 likesReplies (1)
The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
1 likei thought it was 2² + 2² = 4 + 4 = 16 💀
1 likeThe key word in the question is SUM-meaning two or more numbers added together. Square number: The product of a number multiplied by itself. So which of the 4 answers is made up of two numbers, which are then squared(multiplied by their selves) and then they are added together to equal the answer. 4X4=16 plus 3X3=9, then 16+9=25. Answer: C English skills are the key to solving word problems in math.
1 likeReplies (1)
Remembering a few math definitions helps too.
0 likesso this is where u apply that Pythagoras theorem
0 likesThe task itself is so easy, so i think most people didn't understood the question or were overthinking
18 likes25 is the correct answer BUT... the question should have specified that it was dealing with natural integers greater than zero {N+} (otherwise 4^2 + 0^2 =16 could also have been true or even 5^2 + (3i)^2 =16, as someone correctly said in the comments )
0 likesReplies (1)
A square number is a whole number by definition. No further specification is needed.
0 likesmy math teacher linked this in our lesson
0 likes70% of the audience does not know math ...
0 likesThis is why America needs to invest more in STEM education.
1 likeThe audience response says a lot about the Avg. American I.Q
0 likesDude the most famous square triangle -.-
1099 likesReplies (27)
Lol. I immediately realized that after I had read the question several times. Something about the repetitive phrasing really confused me at first.
33 likesProfessorBorax ikr its literally the first numeric example of the pythagorean theorem
52 likesProfessorBorax Yeah , the Pythagorean theorom and this same question appeared twice in our exam.
6 likesProfessorBorax first thing I thought of as well.
4 likesEgyptian triangle :P
1 likeMatko Trupinić Okay 2nd most famous :3
0 likesNo, egyptian triangle has lenght of sides: 3,4,5 (square of 3 is 9, 4 is 16, 9 + 16 = 25), Indian triangle has 5, 12, 13 :P
1 likeMatko Trupinić the main thing of Egyptian triangle is that the proportional multiplying is the same Egyptian triangle but with different lengths so can't be made with others
1 likeAnton Kucher i never said 3, 4 and 5 centimeters.
1 likeLol Ikr. I'd have been lenient if it had been sth like 529 576 625 676, but man... know that 3 4 5. props to anyone who can work out my problem :-)
3 likesGuessing that since 625=25^2, it is similar to a 3 4 5 triangle, so is equal to 15^2 + 20^2. Although 676=26^2, which makes it similar to a 5 12 13 triangle, so is equal to 10^2 + 24^2.
2 likesWilliam Oliver
0 likesCorrect. There are more though. Try and find one where at least one of a or b is prime
ultragamer659 damn, how did I miss 7^2 + 24^2 = 25^2 = 625.
2 likesI went through a phase where I loved triangles. Worked out that for a and b to be coprime, then c-b is either 1 or 2. Also that a^2 =c+b if c-b=1. There are so many other weird things i found, but i won't bore you with them here.
William Oliver
0 likesGood stuff 👍
correct that the most abused right angle triangle. or just think about the triples
0 likesProfessorBorax what about 1-1-sqrt(2)
2 likesindrada 3290609 what about it? It is a valid right angle triangle...
0 likesWilliam Oliver and the most famous because it corresponds to pi/4 and has legs of equal length
0 likesYep, the equal angles are pi/4. Also the hypotenuse of sqrt(2) is also pretty important, as in this context it is the start of a famous method to calculate pi.
0 likeslmao you're right. Didn't even think of the right triangle, but did solve it pretty quick. Pretty disappointed to see how dumb the audience is
4 likesFood for thought:
4 likes42197248^2 + 90660864^2 = 1000000000^2 (10^8).
I wont tell you how I got that ;-)
ultragamer659 I know how, by being a huge nerd.
0 likesHuge nerds make huge $. Enjoy working at McDonalds the rest of your life though
4 likesIt is A famous triangle because of the diagram used to demonstrate the Pythagorean Theorem. However, since this triangle is composed of infrequently used angles, it is hardly the most famous. The 1-sqrt(3)-2 and 1-1-sqrt(2) are used far more as they are composed of far more referenced angles.
0 likesProfessorBorax NERDS
0 likes1 1 sqrt(2)
1 liketraingles aren't square moron, they're triangular!
0 likes0^2 is also a square smaller than any of the choices, so technically all of those are correct
0 likesReplies (2)
The solution is a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers.
0 likes0 + 16 = 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself. The only correct answer is 25 = 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 thanks for the correction
0 likesIt's not such an easy question, in my opinion. Your need a moment of time to think about it. I thought the answer would be 16 at first as well as it is the square of 4x4. And 4 itself is the square of 2x2.
0 likesBut then i realized that it says "the SUM of TWO smaller square numbers". So it has to be 25. As 25 is the also the sum of 16+9. And 16 (4x4) as well as 9 (3x3) are themselves squarenumbers.
Replies (1)
Yeah, i think a lot of people thought this because when you hear square you immediately think square root so they probably thought they were dealing with 4,5, 6, and 7. Although 2 isn’t a square number but yeah, most people think it is.
0 likestbh I also think the answer is 16 and when the answer is revealed, I'm confused, so I read the question again, its a smaller square numbers not square root, I didn't think of 9+16. I'm one of those dumbs.
0 likesI think this question is more tricky than people who got this correct in the comments believe. First you have to remember that a square has to be multipliable by it’s own root only twice. After you take some time to remember the definition of a square you have to think for a second to remember that 8 is not a square number because 2 x 2 x 2 equals 8 but your really doing 2 x 2 first then 4 x 2 so it does not work. Then you have to understand that the question is not saying that the numbers don’t have to be equal to each other because even though it is technically impossible it makes 8 plus 8 seem to be a really good option. So if you don’t do these kinds of math problems everyday then it is easy to forget that a number can be cubed from a smaller number and not be a square. So if you make these false assumptions that are easier to comprehend then it is hard to break out of that trap to think oh they were really asking something else that leads to an understanding that the answer is 3 x 3 = 9 plus 4 x 4 = 16 then 16 plus 9.
0 likesI was like, ah its A), easy! Then when I saw it was B) I was like "fudge, I did'nt understand the question" and would've lost 15k arrogantly without usin a lifeline (;.
0 likesHow the hell is this a $16000 question?? It should be the first question.
964 likesReplies (45)
Aryaman Amitabh because this is an American TV show and our population is horrible at math. If you can do 3rd grade math you are basically elite.
175 likesC W really! $16000 for a 5th grade question.Only If I were the contestant
50 likesNarbadeshwar Singh In what place they teach squares in 5th grade?
39 likes7th grade level question
tjbvver231 Japan, Singapore, Finland, etc
27 likestjbvver231 pretty sure we learned this in 5th grade and im from the US specifically Minnesota
9 likesJulie Ann funny i don't think you are correct. We learned this in 6th 7th and 8th grade amd my school is fairly educated
3 likesEmperor Bob we learned this in 5th grade at my school. You didn't go to my school so I would love to know how you know what I did and did not learn
11 likesJulie Ann you are right sorry for assuming things. But in any case this does not seem like a normal 5th grade topic. Sure we may have gone over this but probably not for that long. Anyways i had no right to assume things so sorry about that it's just i have had it with other people assuming things so i kind of blew my lid 😅
2 likeswell, I'm in England and we learnt basic square numbers (like this one) in year four, that's the equivalent of third grade in the US.
0 likesBrendan Franklin how old are you now?
0 likesI learned basic squares when I was 5. Just wondering why so many learn so old
1 likeMarco ?! I think you just learned it early honestly
0 likesEmperor Bob
0 likesYes your correct👍 But if you would have examined my comment you could see that I already knew that. The only reason it would be reasonable for me to make this statement is, bc I was trying to show off to boost yourself confidence for some apparent reason. Now examine this comment, and see what am I saying
Marco i know you were doing that it was blatantly obvious
0 likesMarco seems to me you didn't finish language arts class. Jk please don't kill me.
0 likesShriyansh Tripathi did you take language arts class?
0 likesEmperor Bob
0 likesYes English and Grammer have always been my weakest subject. I averaged and 90 in that class and I would actually STUDY FOR TEST! BUT STILL AVERAGED A 90!! Any other sub. Was izi.
And sure u noticed. I could clearly tell on how you tried to justify that statement to yourself
Marco i was never the best at language arts class but of course i still kept a decent grade in that class thanks to determination.
0 likesEmperor Bob
0 likesLol thanks for insight
Marco
0 likesThere's some difference. I learnt about square numbers about in 3rd grade cuz the concept behind them is simple and my brother explained it to me because I was curious, but it was taught to us only in 6th grade. Learning before other people only depends about your school and the people around you. So, knowing square numbers at an "early" age doesn't make somebody "smarter" (in fact I suck at maths). As soon as you learn to multiply numbers technically you would be able to understand square numbers.
Pietro Tettamanti
0 likesWho said I was smarter? Anyone can learn squares and multiplication at 5. Yes your environment does come into play on how soon you learn something. Frederick Douglass learned how to read at 12. And still became skilled on giving lectures.
I was given the opportunity to learn early, and I took advantage. As should everyone else. Take advantage of what you got. That's the point in my sayings
Aryaman Amitabh that's not india's KBC. That's American lol 😂😂
1 liketjbbvver231
0 likesBRO SQUARE NUMBERS IN 7TH GRADE U TRIPPING
where tf u from
I learned squares in preschool
1 likeWell he got it wrong and so the majority of the audience so that's why.
2 likesPssh asians
0 likesWait I'm asian
Brian Maputra Kurniawan I thought it was 16 in the early.I thought "sum" was the way to produce by any ways.so it could mean multiplier, additional,etc. So I counted it like this : 2²x2²
0 likesJojo Wilson
1 like"The sum of" just means when added together. It's crazy how many people don't know that. Now, the question could have said "when added together" but that would simplify the question quite a bit because it would be telling you what "the sum of" means.
tjbvver231 nigga im from Iraq and we learnt this stuff in like grade 2
0 likesC W they teach squares in 7th grade in Finland
0 likesYea and I was born knowing this already
0 likes+tjbvver231 I'm an American, and I knew about square numbers before I attended elementary school. My father taught me up to the tens times tables at the age of four, and that obviously includes 1 x 1, 2 x 2, 3 x 3, etc. By the time I was in seventh grade, I was taking Algebra II. If today's students are still working on basic arithmetic by seventh grade, then something is amiss.
0 likesWell maybe for some nerdy sheltered Indian like you it would be
0 likesC W i can tell you i had an A in 7th grade maths and I probably couldn't have answered this
0 likesthen that would make me MLG_Pr0_Elit3_Mast3r_69
0 likesAryaman Amitabh heck I learned this in like 4th or 3rd grade
0 likesIt's a hard question in front of millions of people. The first question is usually one that requires no thinking whatsoever.
0 likestjbvver231 Are you really sure, I learnt it in year 3 ....
0 likesOk I searched it up, and I learnt it in late 2nd grade
0 likesAryaman Amitabh It's unbelievable that they actually pay people for those kinds of questions. That doesn't require any knowledge besides primary level education, and it's honestly sickening that people actually couldn't answer it
0 likesDeva, please provide your reference. I typed in "math by grade" in multiple different ways into multiple search engines. In north America, children are not introduced to multiplication or division until grade 3. I challenge you to provide a single source that shows this is a grade 2 question. It's certainly above grade 4.
0 likesdebussy84 I learnt it oust side school at grade 2. We learnt it in school at grade 3 sorry for my comment being so confusing
0 likesI heard China and India are excellent at math, science, engineering.
0 likesA $16000 question should be about history, not basic math.
1 likeLike... what tactic that Rome used to conquer Egypt? Or what Carthaginians work for a living?
0 likesThat's not a math problem, it's a word problem. He was locked into "two smaller squares" being equal, and they weren't.
1 likeReplies (1)
The best math problems are word problems.
0 likesThere's so much difference between 'Merican averaged person and the rest of the world concerning studies....
0 likesIf they don't attend private ultra--mega-hyper expensive universities, they seem not capable of getting over the distance of the nose.
Pretty harsh but, unfortunately, too often truer than not.
I think everyone confused the question as "which square number happens to be the square of two smaller square numbers" so they automatically thought "well 2^2 is 4 and 4^2 is 16 so it must be A" So the problem here is not that people suck at maths it's that they suck at english
0 likeslist of square numbers:
0 likes4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49...
start adding any 2 of them add see if you get a third square number
9 + 16 = 25
Therefore 25, a square number, is the sum of two smaller squares 9 & 16
That was the question for $16,000? In Polish edition that would be probably the first question.
0 likesOk for those who did not understand the question: there is a certain number, say a², which can be made by the addition of b² and c², both being smaller, and b²+c²=a². Find the answer
29 likesThe easiest way to do this would be learning the square table since 9 is 3² and 16 is 4² and they can be added to make 25 which is 5², the other way is the not so obvious 3-4-5 side triangle, which ofcourse you would think of as a coincidence but somehow this works too
Replies (4)
yes,pythagorean triplets solved this question in 10 seconds
0 likesim pretty sure no one even knows what a squared number is in the audience...
0 likesFor me, the reason why I don't really understand the question is because English isn't my first language, so it takes time for me to understand what does that question really mean lol, but thank you for your comment, it helps me!
0 likesThe question isn't accurate. First of all any number is sum of two squares, 16 is 1 squared plus root 15 squared. If they want to say whole number, we can still use 0. 0 squared plus 4 squared. What this question asking is sum of squares of two natural numbers. Clearly whoever wrote this question has very limited knowledge in maths.
2 likesthat question was really confusing. i couldnt even really understand it myself, so i think him losing is completely understandable on the basis that he didn't understand
0 likesI honestly think this is a trick question. The way it is worded is the problem. Everyone went with A because the square root of 16 is 4, which is also a square of two smaller numbers, 2*2. Thats a trick question at its finest.
1 likeReplies (2)
What would have been a better wording?
0 likesThat's exactly what i thought when i read the question
0 likesClearly a trick question lol
0 likesI'm surprised that 3-4-5 triangles aren't as well known as they should be.
0 likesReplies (1)
yeah
0 likesHow did he have so much time and still get it wrong? This one is so simple because you know if your right. What two squared numbers did he think made 16 I can only imagine he thought 4*4 or 2^2*2^2 but it’s said sum not product.
0 likesThe relationship between the squares that make up 25 is the basis for the trick you can use to create perfect right angles with only a string and a measuring tape. A triangle with sides of the ratio 3:4:5 forms a right angle.
45 likesReplies (8)
When literally haven’t learnt much math not even difficult adding it’s hard and you want to make excuses and I have many. I’d only prefer to struggle if someone sat down with me and struggle with me to teach me but too bad that’s a privilege not a given right. To waste someone else’s time.
2 likesBro square of 2✓2 + 2✓2 = 16
0 likes@Israel Country Cube I can teach you
0 likes@NISHI TEJIYAN (2✓2 + 2✓2)^2 is not a sum of squares.
0 likesIt is the square of a sum.
In right triangles, when one leg is exactly 1/3 longer than the other, the hypotenuses are whole numbers. 3, 4, 5 - 6, 8, 10 - 9, 12, 15 - 12, 16, 20 etc.
0 likes@punakaify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple#Examples
1 like@punakaify
1 like(simple demo for that)
If
a*a + b*b = c*c
Then
x * (a*a + b*b) = x * (c*c)
(distributive property)
x*a*a + x*b*b = x*c*c
(x natural, for those who want to be rigorous)
@Alexis What I put was a deduction that I got from the exercises that I proposed to my little son. I never got to consult other possibilities. Very thankful.
0 likesWhat about sum of square of '0' and '4'
0 likesI think option A was correct as 0 and 4 are smaller than 3 and 4 consecutive
Replies (1)
0 and 4 sum to 4, not 16.
1 like0 and 16 sum to 16, but this cannot be correct because 16 cannot be smaller than itself. The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers.
As an indian seeing getting this question wrong even by the audience makes me wonder americans basic knowledge
0 likesHe didn't even have a time limit?
0 likesIf you know your Pythagorean triples, this one is easy.
0 likesdammit, im never gonna be good at math......
0 likesI’ll never forget my 7th grade math teach showed our class this video and we were all supposed to make our guess with our partner, and everyone said 16 and then my partner said she thought I was wrong and refused to answer 25 with me, and then I was the only one who got it right
310 likesReplies (17)
Jack Rhodes man ur classmates are dumb as fuck
68 likes+Fariz Ali That's retarded America for you.
26 likesGD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 It's fine, sorry if I seemed a little triggered. I probably took it a bit too far too, with the "Civil War" and all.
3 likesidk as far as I am concearned the republicans are mostly idiots waving around guns and trying to show how long their dick is while fixing no problems whatsoever, so that doesn't look like being smart to me xD
3 likesLunnarisLP You're literally doing the exact same thing. Yes, the rare far-right person will do that, but there are also far-left people who think that every single thing coming out of someone's mouth is offensive and think that every child should be aborted. There are extremes on both sides, and you can't judge a side for that.
1 likeMax DragonSoul generalizing a country of over 400,000,000 people as all inherently dumb, simply for being born in certain region of the world is more ignorant than getting this question wrong
4 likesHydraLord1221 At least you are the only one that saw through the original poster's Bullshit.
0 likesHow you end up with 16?
0 likeshow did this get political in less than 15 replies?
2 likesThat couldn't have happened with me. I'm 33. Who Wants to Be A Millionaire didn't exist in the 1990's when I was growing up.
0 likesThePizzaEater1000 Thats the u.s for you
0 likesGD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 Its true I was the teacher
0 likesOMG, you're so smart!
0 likesUnban me Paul And where did you get these “statistics” from? Buzzfeed?
0 likesUnban me Paul And you do realise that intelligence narrowly measured in some outdated test doesn’t correlate in being wise in politics
0 likesJack Rhodes holy fuck you're so smart
0 likesAnd then everyone clapped.
1 likeSuch confusing question but my 1st language isn't English. I thought they ment: 25 root number is 5, so 5 + 5 is the sum of two smaller square numbers
0 likesAnyone who mocks someone who has trouble with math or some other skill is a potential bully.
0 likesYes, they are, because their attitude is very similar to the attitude of bullies - "haha, I am above this person".
Good KBC is made by getting inspired from here.
0 likesThe answer is 25, because 9+16=25. 9 is a square number because 3×3=9 and 16 is a square number because 4×4=16. It's easy when you are at your home and have time to think and can see the options on the screen, but I imagine that if you are in a tv show where your answers will cost money this may be too much pressure to handle and also you have limited time to think, this makes things difficult
0 likesi think its more likely that he failed to understand the question rather the math
0 likesMan was literally so pissed and disappointed at the end that he doesn't even wanna take that 1000$.
52 likesWhich of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller "squared" numbers.
0 likesReplies (1)
"Square" number.
1 likeSquare number is another term for perfect square.
It's 25 since, 9+16=25 or 3^2+4^2=25. 9 and 16 are square numbers that are smaller to 25. Square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, etc. Most people could instantly solve this but they confuse themselves with the question.
0 likesshe was pushing not to go with the audience
0 likesI can see how the answer is what it is, but I misunderstood the question, which is proof I suck at math.
0 likesI am so proud that I can solve this!!!
0 likes0:38 "Take your time"
155 likesAll you gotta do is think about perfect squares and start summing them together randomly till you get one of the solutions (B).
A isn't right since all you have to work with is 1, 4, 9, 16. None of those will sum to 16.
C isn't right since you have 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 to work with. Quick checks shows none of those add to 36.
D isn't right by the same procedure.
B is correct since you have 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25 to work with. A quick look shows that 9 + 16 = 25.
Replies (13)
A lot of math problems seem tricky from the wording, but is actually very easily executed. It just comes down to attention to detail
17 likesThe way they worded it, he has a lot more to work with than that. √7 and 3 makes 16 correct. All answers are correct.
0 likesHow does √7 + 3 = 16? The solution to that is 5.65 rounded.
9 likesThose are the numbers to square. But apparantly, "square number" doesn't mean the same thing as the combined meanings of "square" and "number", so the question wasn't flawed after all, only the English language.
0 likesImtotallydiggingthis Square number is a mathematically defined term, not a colloquial English one. There's no ambiguity whatsoever in the question.
7 likesMathematical terms are a subset of the English language. "Square number" is not a mathematical term in Russian or Mandarin.
1 likeAlso, if square number is a mathematical term, then so are square and number, in the context we are using them in. The fact that "number" has a different semantic meaning when you put the word "square" in front of it is shit stupid. English speaking mathematicians failed on that one.
EX Muslim Mol7ed it said two smaller. The question is clear. Nothing about being the same
2 likesThe question is clear. I honestly solved it in my head before the answer was shown. It took me like 30 seconds
4 likesImtotallydiggingthis The terminology is fine. You simply assumed a definition without knowing what the term refers to. Do not get mad at mathematicians or the english language. Just learn from your mistake and move on.
5 likesImtotallydiggingthis Вот и я о чём говорю! Если спросить меня на русском языке о сумме: квадрат числа "3" и квадрат числа "4", то очевидный ответ "25". :-D
0 likesА на самом деле:
Меньшие из квадратов чисел, и никак иначе! А это соответственно для 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7;
будут
1; 4; 9; 16; 25; 36; 49;
Только один момент! Ещё раз "меньшие из квадратов чисел", т.е. из ряда 1; 4; 9; 16; 25; 36; 49; это будут меньшие числа 1; 4; сумма 1+4 = 5 (sic!)
Квадрат числа 5^2 = 25 (sic!)
Перевод для английских ребят ниже.
Smaller square numbers? Serious?
I think smaller square numbers is 1^2=1, 2^2=4.
1+4=5;
5^2=25.
There is 3^2+4^2=5^2=25, sic!
And NO SMALLER square numbers:
3^2=9, 4^2=16.
Hi from Russia! And russian educations! LOL
The problem was that he didn't understand the question
1 likeAhh i see, so its that freaking simple
0 likesEagleLogic He means the square root of 7 being squared + the square root of 3. Squaring the square root of 7 gives you 7, plus the square root of 3, which is 9. 7+9 = 16. You clearly haven't reached high school yet, either that or you forget basic math pretty easily.
0 likes25.
0 likes3x3=9
+
4x4=16
=
5x5=25
Source: Highschool geometry teaching us the Pythagorean theorem.
The question can be formulated to say:
0 likesWhich of these numbers can be a hypotenuse to a right triangle squared ?
A 3, 4 5 right triangle is famous
I had to think it for like 40 seconds but I got it right!
0 likes📌
0 likes🔴4²+3²= 5²
Science students Directly remembers PGT ( Pythagoras theorem) questions
Its 1st class math😂😂😂
0 likesHoly shit the people in this comment section are so smart.
1441 likesReplies (37)
Sea Dog Just people trying to feel smart on Basic arithmetic. To be honest I failed too.
100 likesHoly shit we have the exact same profile picture
24 likesNope. You guys dumb. But no worries at least 80% of the population is as dumb considering the audience results so don't take it bad and be happy with what you have
22 likesHoly shit KanyeWet is so smart.
75 likesthelegend 27 it's really not, it's basic math you just can't be that dumb
12 likesdoes this count as Iamverysmart?
21 likesKanyeWet is so smart I can't even handle it. He's above us all, looking down at us dumb peasants like fucking Einstein
41 likesNICE PROFILE PIC
0 likeswhy are u red bro?
2 likesim communist
6 likesSea Dog I like your pfp
0 likesi honestly thought both square numbers were supposed to be the same numbers and i couldnt find solution, im retarded lol. but picking a is dumb smh 2^3 is cubed not squared
1 likeIt’s literally a primary school level question... it’s sad how stupid people have become.
5 likesTactical Chunder saying "how stupid people have become" is only something a stupid person would say because the level of education world wide is at an all time high with upward trends. So what is it? Did you stop education after "literally" primary school so you don't have the ability to read statistics but can feel good about solving basic algebra questions? Really makes you think.
21 likesYou think that people knowing basic primary school maths is showing off?? No, if you didn't know the answer to that, you are objectively a bit thick.
5 likesI didn't say show off, I said feeling good about it. Two very different things. The fact that you couldn't comprehend that simple English sentence makes you objectively a bit thick. Also it's "people [...] are" not "is". That is basic primary school English. If you didn't know that, you are objectively a bit thick.
2 likesTagæyan Lol @ trying to correct someone's correct use of grammar. The act of people knowing mathematics is the subject of the sentence, not the people themselves...
3 likesAnd nobody should feel good about knowing the answer to this fuck easy question. I only find it hilarious how laughably bad the American public seems to be at primary school-level mathematics.
"And nobody should feel good about knowing the answer to this fuck easy question." Are you fucking stupid. That's exactly what I said. Jesus, you really do have problems comprehending basic English sentences. Going from a room of about 100 People to "the American public" is also such a stupid thing to say. It's funny that people who feel the need to boast online that they where able to solve basic algebra questions and those "stupid Americans" couldn't are unable to have any reasonable thought?! Maybe you are on the spectrum.
3 likesLol, turns out Americans are insecure as well as dumb. Learn to accept that your country is mostly made of morons and find the humour in it. The UK has a population of imbiciles too, but we know how to laugh at our incompetence. Christ, you guys are touchy...
1 likeWhy would you assume I'm American? I'm not. So we are back again at the point of reasonable thought which you have just proven pretty effectively.
2 likesMany people are pointing the finger at Americans as if people in their country were smarter but being smart is not a matter of where you're from. There is only an educational issue. There are some countries where school and studying are the most important things in life and other countries where people don't even go to school
3 likes"If its dumb assume its american and move on with your day."
2 likes-The United Kingdom
But tbh I can agree I'm not smart lol
I mean I'm not smart but I'm so advanced in math now that I can actually calculate the probability in my head of me being in the situation seen in the video above. It is very low and not actually worth the time I started investing in it back in 2007 after watching this video. Fuck me, I wasted all this time and effort and it's too late now, should have gone for horticulture.
1 likeEveryone woke...
0 likesBecause the question is unimaginably easy
1 likeSea Dog
0 likesThank you Mr. Dog! 😊
KanyeWet thank you kanye very cool.
1 likeWhen you do enough Pythagoras theorem, it sticks to you. Like 12^2 and 5^2 adds to 13^2. Or 4^2 and 3^2 is 5^2
0 likesThe Gnome Child knows everything
0 likesYou guys are dumb this is basic math
0 likesNah. We just learned and remember Pythagorean theorem.
0 likesBecause they all have google as friend :)
0 likesIKR? Niggas thinking they have 160 iq for figuring out Pythagoras
4 likesKanyeWet I think you're easily apart of that 80%.(:
1 likeIt’s basic middle school math lol
1 likewell you sure seem to be sea dog!
0 likes@Azhar Haque the problem with "basic math" is it really isn't basic. this problem is basically asking if you know about the 3-4-5 triangle which is a random fact on its own. if you don't know it, it doesn't mean your dumb but it clearly means you're ignorant/or have forgotten math altogether. I myself am good at math, but had to take a while answering the problem.
0 likesA SQUARE NUMBER IS A NUMBER IF YOU TAKE THE SQUARE ROOT COMES OUT TO A CLEAN WHOLE NUMBER. For example: 4,9,16,25,36,49,64….
0 likesWhen skipping Pythagoras' theorem costs $15,000 then how much cost will one pay for skipping calculus?
0 likesThe actuall problem was very easy, but the wording is what made it difficult.
0 likesBro, this is by far one of the easiest math questions I've seen. How and why the audience and the contestant both chose A is ridiculous. I'm in middle school and this was child's play, so it worries me that half the audience couldn't do middle school math.
1 likeReplies (2)
Most people have no need to remember square numbers, so it's difficult to remember back to your childhood days, in a short amount of time.
0 likes@CHRISTIANNWO I would agree, but squares are common knowledge, so this isn't a lack of memory, it's wilfull ignorance
0 likesOh lmao I thought it was 2 of the same square number 😢
0 likesI paused the video to work it out and I'm ashamed to say this took me way longer than it should have. Rather than just reciting all the low, square numbers and adding them together and trial and erroring it, I started with 49 and was taking away other numbers and thinking ... not a square ... not a square ... not a square ...
13 likesI've sat in the audience for this show before, and sometimes it's not that you couldn't work out the answer, it's that they literally don't even show the audience a screen with the options on before you vote (they tell you, and you have to remember what they've said). That's hard when you're trying to do trial and error to work out an answer, especially if they don't give you a lot of time before asking the audience.
I got the correct answer eventually but being in that audience I could easily have rushed or forgotten the options.
2 smaller numbers is 4 and 3
0 likes4²:4.4:16
3²:3.3:9
Now sum up them
3²+4²:5²:25
78% of the audience is exactly on the same level. America.
0 likesI would have got it wrong too.
0 likesThis answer is surprisingly tricky because the first choice is the SQUARE of two square numbers, not the sum. To get this question correct requires sifting through all the squares that could add up to each option and resting on three and four. Not surprised everybody got it wrong!
0 likesReplies (3)
1,4,9,16,25 omg so many numbers to add
2 likes@mambda LOL
0 likes"Everybody" didn't get it wrong. 70% of the audience got it wrong. 100% would be "everybody". I hope you don't get a math question in the future.
0 likesLegend says that this guy massacred the whole audience afterwards.
0 likes“Professor, when will we use this in the real world?”
20 likesReplies (1)
soon
2 likestechnically they are all correct because you can have themselves + 0 squared
1 likeDamn not only him, even the audience doesn't know basic mathematics 😂. I feel proud to be Indian
83 likesReplies (19)
Maths is really complex in the USA but in higher education(Colleges). we are taught these things in our formal schooling, the reason why India produces world-class engineers(IITians) like Sunder Pichai, Satya Nadella and thousands more. And not only India but china and japan are also very well versed in maths
9 likes@Indian chad well isn't that just a 3square + 4 square ie 9+16=25 ie 5square. That's a 5th grade question.
3 likes@Sanskar Tandel yes it is , they got confused by 2x2 x 2x2 or A part
2 likes@Indian chad forget about him. Even 78% audience didn't knew it 😂😂
3 likes@Indian chad Satya Nadella studied from manipal institute of technology
0 likes@Sanskar Tandel I'm in 11th grade still I got confused somehow💀
1 likeCongratulations on your Indiannness
2 likes"Basic"??? How fucking advanced do your mathematics get that squares are considered basic?
3 likes@Sanskar Tandel I was NOT taught to write equations like that until middle school
3 likesI don't know about other countries but even a below average Student in India would answer this before 30 seconds, this is literal defination of basics for us. Permutations,Trigonometry and other stuff gets real hard here
1 like@Ember Hermin same here bro squares are taught here in middle school, but these are squares of some really small numbers.
0 likesI will bet that a large percentage of Indians would not have answered this correctly in the same situation.
0 likes@AL I would say small percentage.
0 likesI know there are a lot of very smart people in india, but taking a small cross section of a group of people especially in this situation is not a good representation of the population as a whole@Prakash Pandey
0 likes@AL what representation as a whole? The whole conversation is about comparing people who have completed schooling in US vs in India.
0 likesBut what does that have to do with the people in the audiance. I don't know anything about these people. @Prakash Pandey
0 likes@AL we can see people in the audience are of age higher than 13-15(8th-10th standard) so they already know squares , and they also have higher literacy rate than India. Still 70% gave wrong answers 🌝
0 likesBut not everybody is a math major and may have narrowed their education on other things such as marketing or english or history etc... Many of them may have also been out of school for decades and actually just working for a living. I don't know @Prakash Pandey
0 likes@AL true
0 likes4, 9, 16, 25, 36....you're there. And they don't press you on time. It is funny to watch people's brains when they stop functioning
0 likesTHIS WAS SOOOOO EASY!!!
1 likeEVERYONE SHOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS!!!
If they’d put 9 in there as well you’d be able to work it out without even knowing what a square number is! Man was cheated
0 likesPlot twist: Audience knew the correct answer, they just wanted to teach him a lesson for not knowing a simple math.
59 likesReplies (4)
So they’re Satan’s crotch goblins…
3 likes@Deathwing the Destroyer true
0 likesBasically the audience was a big troll lmao
0 likesNah, Americans just suck at maths (and not only maths).
0 likesI know math very well, trig, algebra, stats, long arithmetic, linear programming, all sorts of math. But even I couldn’t understand the question here. So to the people bashing him saying “he doesn’t know math” he dosnt know this math, you don’t know what math he does know, it’s impossible to know all math. No one does, you only remember the parts that’s relevant to to your career.
1 likeReplies (2)
You don't need to know any math in order to answer this question. No need to remember anything. This is basic arithmetic, with small numbers.
1 like4²=16
1 like3²=9
4²+3²=25
It is tricky. Easy to look at 16 as the product of 2 squares and not realize the question is asking for the sum of two squares.
0 likesThe audience set him up for failure
0 likesEverybody thinks it's easy after they saw the answer.
0 likesThe reality is, this is a math question and people are not used to them. It requires practice in order to think mathematically.
So the answer is 25 because the square numbers are 16 and 9. You either calculate, which takes time or you know it by heart since is the pythagorean 3,4,5 triple.
15 years old video recommended out of the blue. Idk why...
I actually can’t solve it unless I have a pen and paper. Or ipad
0 likesAs a maths teacher this genuinely made my heart sink with frustration!
292 likesReplies (17)
lol i think your english could use some work...
36 likesHearts don't normally sink with frustration. Sadness, yeah. Loneliness, well OK. But frustration? I don't feel it. Frustration is a brain thing.
7 likesYour brain sank 👍
Fletchlie you knew what he meant tho
3 likesi agree yeah he's a maths teacher.
1 like15october91 I made it to geometry and I still didnt know the answer.
1 likeHow did he not know the triplets (3,4,5)?
1 likeRandom Internet Person Well, math is short for mathematics. He's not totally wrong lol.
0 likesFletchlie you feel every emotion from the brain🤦♂️
0 likes15october91 I don't doubt that you are good at maths but I can give you endless combinations of square numbers (with digits after the comma) of which the sum is either 16, 25, 36 or 49. The point of this question is that they have to be ''natural numbers'' with no digits after the comma, but I reject this question as it is very vulnerable for interpretation
0 likesFuck you Mrs Kimber math teacher bitch
6 likesRandom Internet Person In First of all in England we call it maths and not math, second of all you missed an uppercase letter.
0 likesRandom Internet Person, they only made one or two mistakes whilst you made five. The second one that the maths teacher had made is only if you carefully attribute specific emotions with the heart. That is most do not talk about a frustrated heart which was caused by a logic error (such equating dollars to cents).
0 likesFor which it is best to spread tolerance and love!
Why people would think maths teachers aren't the problem is beyond me...
1 likeRandom Internet Person
1 likeMathematics.
Math
ematics.Maths.
Dipshit.
15october91 Imagine your english teacher after that masterpiece?
0 likessmwmaster Moose = Moose not Mooses.
0 likesI hope you understand math better than English.
0 likesi am amazed with the american education system
0 likesWell, the question didn't specify what type of number they are talking about. So every option can be the answer. eg:3^2 + √7^2 = 16. So they were not wrong after all. Everyone answered correctly.🤠
0 likesReplies (1)
The question specified that the answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. A “square number” is a whole number whose square root is an integer. The square numbers up to 49 are:
0 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number from this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
I would have failed too I have no idea what the question is asking
0 likesTrusting yank audience, brave
0 likesI lost my faith in humanity once more.
0 likesMy math teacher during freshman year showed this to my math class and I was the only one who got the question right. LITERALLY EVERYYONE ELSE IN THE CLASS chose answer A.
40 likesReplies (6)
I think people just mixed up sum and product. Still inexcusable, but there is a reason for it.
11 likesDid anyone ask the people who got it wrong what their two square numbers were?
4 likesBut 16 is the sum of 5.76 and 10.24, both of which are square numbers. They're not perfect squares because they're not integers, but they ARE square numbers, having rational square roots. So in fact all 4 choices are correct. 12.96+23.04=36, and 17.64+31.36=49. The game show actually messed up asking this question. They should have said "perfect squares", not "square numbers".
2 likesA square number is (depending on which definition you use) the square of an integer.
1 like@K S What do you mean, "depending on which definition you use"? Is there any other definition?
0 likes@medexamtoolsdotcom Perfect square is the same as square number. 5.76 is not a square number.
0 likesThe bad thing is not that he got it wrong, but that 50% of the audience chose 16, though 16 is such a SMALL digit, so it takes no time to cover all the squares before 16 since they are just 1, 4, and 9. Hence 1 + 4 (that's not ), 1 + 9 (that's not it), and 4 + 9 (that's not it). Hence 16 CAN NOT be the correct answer. Doing this only takes a few seconds, with just three possible combinations 3!/2!(3-2)! or 6/2 =3 since order does not matter when adding the two digits. For 25, there are just 6 possible combinations (24/4); hence 1 +4, 1+ 9, 1+'16, 4+9, 4 +16, 9+16. But if one remembers the Pythagorean triple 3, 4, and 5, then the above is unnecessary and needs to know 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 or 9 + 16 =25 (Pythagorean Theorem).
0 likes70% of the audience got the problem wrong 1:18
So, I could understand if they chose the other wrong choices since they are bigger numbers and may want to go through the different possibilities.
Since there are no conditions specified, all answers are correct.
0 likesReplies (1)
The specified conditions were that the answer had to be the sum of two smaller square numbers. A square number a.k.a. perfect square is a whole number whose square root is also a whole number.
0 likesThe only possible correct choice given this condition is 25.
That's something towards a car. I don't know about that after taxes
0 likesI was expecting a challenge when i saw $15,000. I don't mean to offend anyone here but this is something everyone who completed middle school should know. In fact, it is 4th or 5th grade math. I have 2 high schoolers so i know this for sure. About a quarter of the audiences know 5th grade math, it is shocking. And we claim US is the most power country in the world.
0 likesThey also gave him so much time to think, still couldn't pull a 5th grade math. Yeeks
0 likesEnglish is not my first language, but I was really struggling with this even though I am a programmer and I studied pretty advanced math, lol. Anyway the reason I had a problem with this is because I thought the "two smaller square numbers" had to be the same numbers, which I believe doesn't have a solution as an integer (well except zero of course). But for an english native audience - yes they are probably stupid.
188 likesReplies (15)
No it was phrased oddly even for a native English speaker.
40 likesOt even to me a second to figure out what the question was asking.
And for a kid with $16,000 on the line and millions watching, the pressure would have forced all math out the window.
Why would you think they had to be the same number? The question doesn't even suggest that.
12 likesIf you're a programmer you should have figured it out knowing that there's one and ONLY one correct answer. You made the assumption these smaller numbers are the same, it's not that hard to check all even answers and instantly see that this assumption is wrong, hence these smaller numbers are different which leads to only one correct answer - 25.
6 likesAs a native English speaker I think the question was correctly written. I can understand someone having trouble processing it especially if not a native speaker, but as it's written it's perfectly clear and leads to the one correct answer.
12 likesI was confused af too. Knowing it meant different ones I instantly though 16 and 9 to make 25. I would like to say a stupid person wrote this however it seems logical that they purposely wrote it that way to make it less likely for the contestant to be correct
3 likesBy the way, twice a square is never going to be a square because it has an odd number of 2's in the prime decomposition
3 likesHow would other people write this question? It might be confusing but it's the most precise way to ask the question. It's a mathematical way of describing the result they want
1 likeIndeed there are NO perfect squares that match the conditions you thought they were asking for, because that would require the square root of 2 to be a rational number. See if a number is a perfect square, it is of the form x=n^2 for some integer n. But if y=2*n^2 is also to be a perfect square, then y=m^2 for some integer m, and the result would be that m/n would equal the square root of 2, making the square root of 2 rational.
3 likesI would have honestly written "the sum of two different square numbers", as even though I'm not a native I understood the question, but I thought about summing the same squares for some reason.
2 likesA smaller would suggest it would be the sum of 2² and 3².
0 likesI've studied math for a while and still does. I'm french but also read books in english. To me there was no ambiguity at all in the question. In math when you say 'prove that every even number is the sum ot two primes' you didnt state the two primes has to be the same
3 likes@Queta Arbuste yeah I know what you and the other user mean, It's just that my mind instantly thought the two smaller numbers had to be equal for some reason.
0 likes@Christheplayer99 alright
0 likes@Carson Lawler It basically asked "Which square number (among A,B,C,D) is the sum of two smaller square numbers?". Happens to be = is. This is a perfect mathematical description.
0 likes@Big Daddy No, they phrased it perfectly since you have to be specific in "square number" and "smaller". It´s basic English.
0 likesWell it can be anything as the numbers aren't defined to be integers, rational ,irrational, or non real
1 likeReplies (1)
Square numbers are derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, square numbers are whole numbers.
1 likeI bet that 90% of people here that have even a college degree in math related things guessed it wrong, at least without reading the question 5 times or really thinking about it. It is just a typical trick question that should be extremely easy to answer but somehow confuses the majority of the people.
0 likesDon't be mad if you gussed it wrong and you other people stop circle jerking how you got it right.
Omg i was thinking about it like 2 times 2 is 4 and 4 times 4 is 16... it's not that I don't know math it's that the question was just a tad bit confusing
0 likesI'm amazed even 22% of the audience got it. Math is absolute Greek to the vast majority of people..
0 likesReplies (1)
Math is Greek to you as well, every time you start studying a new math concept. Nobody thinks that math is a piece of cake the entire time - everyone struggles with it at various points.
0 likesIndian student- 😭😭😭😭😭😭
2 likesShit, I missed the word "sum" there and made the same mistake as the audience.
19 likesReplies (5)
69aussieguy Yeah, I made the same mistake at first.
1 likeJust looked again at the question, and it seems so obvious it's asking which of those numbers is made from two other squared numbers, but it's not how I first read it.
1 likeI messed it up even more and was thinking which answer can be made from adding two square roots together somehow hahaha
0 likesWhat did you think the question was?
0 likesCristi Neagu What I first thought it was asking, as I think the audience did, is "which of these numbers is the square of a smaller square". Which would be 16 as it's 4 squared, which in turn is 2 squared.
1 likeThe question was not entirely understood until the answer was given by Merrideth. *The question could have been longer, to begin with for clarification. 4^2 + 3^2 = 16 + 9 = 25
0 likesIt’s an English question. People don’t know what “also sum of these two square numbers” even means. 4, 9, 16, 25 are your only choices here of two squares to sum. So your choices of sums are 13, 20, 29, 25, 34, 29 and 25 is the only square sum.
0 likesI think they left some stuff out of the question in order to solve it.
0 likesAt first, none of these seemed to be the answer because I was thinking the "two smaller square numbers" had to be the same number. Not realizing they can be different really got me. It's worded pretty trickily.
25 likesReplies (5)
I mean, no where does it say they have to be the same
2 likesIt is worded just fine, not "trickily".
1 likeWhen I see wording like "the sum of two smaller square numbers", nowhere did it state "the same square numbers", so I never thought it would be "the same" square numbers.
0 likes@ImProBowlesyy HD
0 likesIs also does so specify it has to be perfect squares so any answer would be correct.
@Space junk A square number (AKA a perfect square) is the product of an integer (whole number) multiplied by itself. if you are on about decimal numbers being square numbers, then they are technically the ratio of two square numbers.
0 likesBruh I have straight A’s in fucking engineering and I can’t do this 💀
1 likeI didn't realize the 2 smaller square numbers could be different, I thought they had to be the same, like 9 and 9 or 16 and 16.
16 likesReplies (1)
Sgt Waffles 09 then the question would propably be worded differently to specify that you can only use the same twice
0 likes3 and4 aren't the squares though. If the question was, "which number is the sum of two smaller squares" the answer should have been 9 and 16. Those are squares. Perfect squares in fact. 3 and 4 are the square roots. Am I missing something here?
0 likesAlright, this is pretty easy. We'll tackle this via process of elimination. We know 16 is 4 squared. And numbers lower than 4 are 2 and 3 (Not counting 1 since 1 squared gives us 1). 2 squared + 3 squared = 4 + 9, which is not 16. Hence it cannot be Option A. 5 squared is 25. Numbers less than 5 are 4 and 3. 4 squared is 16 and 3 squared is 9, which gives us a sum of 25. And that is why it should be Option B.
0 likesReplies (1)
Why even think
0 likesYou just know it's 25 just by looking
He lost "only" 7000
0 likesThey’re ALL sums of smaller square numbers, so he was right! 0 squared is 0, so 4^2 + 0^2 = 16. He should protest :)
0 likesAlso…I have no idea why this popped up in my feed 14 years after it was uploaded.
Replies (1)
A square number is a whole number whose square root is also a whole number. The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers.
0 likesTrue, 0 + 16 is 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself.
The only correct choice is 25.
Did the audience not even think about it?
0 likesI am scared of america. Seriously...
22 likesReplies (2)
This is less of a reflection on the US as a whole and more of a reflection on those that watch this show.
4 likesstlkngyomom I'm thinking more along the lines of people that seek to win money, rather than earn it.
0 likesReally just draw a line with 2,3,4,5 above the line, and their squares just underneath them below the line- 4,9,16,25. Only one combination of sums is listed as a choice. This is how people who are geniuses at math do so. They visualize the equations.
0 likes( oh god im gonna look like a fool but ) wouldn't technically all of them be correct answers because you just take the normal square + 0^2 ( so for example: 5^2+0^2 =25 and so on )?
0 likesReplies (1)
Note the "smaller" in the question. This excludes answers of the 0^2+x^2=x^2 kind.
0 likesMe: What is square number?
0 likesPov: non english native...
Beautiful, it's a 345 triangle. A²+b²=c²
0 likesSuch a tricky question to answer
0 likesWhen he was asked to think patiently we can tell all he was thinking is “I dont know math”
15 likesI hope this guy does not claim to have a high school diploma (let alone a college degree). A 12 year old should be able to answer this question. Let's put it down to nerves
0 likesThis was definitely a "two coins add up to 15 cents, one of them is not a nickel" situation for me. I thought it would have to be the sum of identical square numbers and was completely tied in knots. Not a very well-worded question tbh. If the showrunners had spent some more time on their grammar skills, he'd likely have had a much better shot at the 15k (ironically enough).
0 likesReplies (3)
Question is well worded and mathematically precise.
0 likes@mambda If you have forgotten what "square number" means, then this question will be confusing even for people who are excellent at math.
0 likes@Peter bruh
0 likesNote to self. Never ask the audience when you live in America.
0 likesThis question can be interpreted in so many different ways
0 likesReplies (3)
How? Name a single other way that doesn't result in 25.
0 likes@mambda which of these square numbers are also the sum of two smaller numbers. I’m sorry but it literally just said which of these numbers are the sum of two smaller numbers. They are all numbers that result from a square and can be found from the sum of two smaller numbers. 16 is a square number that can be found when you sum 3 and 14 together.
0 likes@mambda nvm I didn’t see the two smaller SQUARE numbers part.
0 likeshe never even seemed to try to work out the answer…..
0 likesunderstanding the question is half the answer.
19 likesReplies (1)
ya, he clearly didn't know what a squared number is. There was no math going on in his head, just "WTF is this?"
5 likesThe square root of 16 is four. The square root of four is two. Therefore, the square root of 16 has also compromise of two lesser squares.
0 likesReplies (1)
It’s asking for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. You are simply taking the square root of the square root, which has nothing to do with addition.
2 likesYou don’t even need the Pythagorean theorem for this one. Let’s take 16 as an example. In your head, you list out all the square numbers that are smaller than 16. In this case, we have 4 and 9, but they don’t add up to 16, so we move on to 25. We’ve got 4, 9 and 16, and obviously 16+9=25.
0 likesnah thats actually a hard question i dont blame the guy
0 likesI found out the answer but it took like 3-5 minutes just because the wording of the question. If they said perfectly square numbers I think I could have figured it out in a minute or less.
0 likesReplies (5)
A square number and perfect square are the same thing.
0 likes@mambda precisely and where I'm from people tend to say perfectly square not squared numbers. Because any number can be squared, like the square root of two.
0 likesIt's not about the math but about the phrasing, incase you haven't noticed that people speak differently all around the world and have different notation and phrasing to match even within the same math department.
@Isazi Sempi They didn't say "squared numbers" but "square numbers". I'm not a native speaker myself and with a handful of braincells left you should be able to deduce that they probably don't mean 1^2 + sqrt(15)^2 but the sum of two perfect squares.
0 likesAlso in the english language squared number and perfect square do mean the same thing in this context. Assuming the contestant and the majority of the audience are native english speakers this is completely irrelevant.
So even
@mambda you should probably go back to whatever shit area your from that doesn't speak English and stop trying to sound smart on a youtube comment section.
0 likes@Isazi Sempi deal with it
0 likestbf it took me a full few minutes to realize the answer lol
0 likesThe best way to understand this is just listing square numbers. 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, and on...
689 likesThe only two numbers that add up to one of those answers is 25. 9 + 16.
Replies (43)
ajneufeld762 it should say positive square numbers because you can include 0^2=0
8 likesDr. Sea yup that's true
8 likesDr. Sea nope read the question again
49 likesIt says sum of 2 smaller square numbers
So if u say 4^2 + 0^2=16
4^2=16 it is not smaller
That's all true, but if you are under hot lights with lots of money on the line, you may not think of that.
11 likeshazelwood55 agreed
2 likesYeah that's how I'd do it too
0 likesWhats makes a number a squared number?
0 likesI got the right answer B in like 30 seconds I happened to Minor in MATH in college though
2 likesBut it said SMALLER square numbers, so 16 being an option to choose from makes me think u cant use 16
0 likesajneufeld762 Every number is a square number yk?
3 likesYou can square any number. Not just 1,4,etc. What makes it a "squared" number.
2 likes^2 = squared. 1^2 = 1, 2^2 = 4, 3^2 = 9.
0 likesNot the only two numbers. There r other numbers such as 25+144=169 (5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2)
1 likeThere are plenty of pythagorean triple:
3 likes3-4-5 and All its multiples (6-8-10, 9-12-15, ecc..)
5-12-13 and All its multiples (10-24-26, 15-36-39, ecc..)
8-15-17 and All its multiples (16-30-34, ecc...)
7-24-25 and its multiples...
And so on
Ghost Mutt Like 2x2 = 4 and 3x3 = 9 and 4x4 = 16 and so on.
0 likesI took Algebra in high school and I didn't know that!
0 likesajneufeld762 for this he must know what a square number is.
0 likesSitting on that seat fcuk yr mind
0 likesajneufeld762 o
0 likesThe best way is to feel it. No calculation needed. No suggested answers required.
0 likesajneufeld762 Initially, my mind went straight to 16 as well, for some reason. As soon as I did the math though, I immediately changed to 25. It's weird
0 likesajneufeld762 oh so you graduated first grade 😁
0 likesajneufeld762 de
0 likesActually, all you need to do is use Pythogoras' Theorem. You don't even need to use it to solve it, since the Pythagorean triplet 3 4 5 is quite well-known.
1 likeYeah that's how I did it in my head before watching the video. Pretty basic stuff.
0 likesDr. Sea
0 likesThat is NOT true because the question asked for the sum of squares of two SMALLER numbers.
I just immediately thought of pythagoras, 3^2+4^2=5^2 is the classic example.
0 likesI then checked if either of the others were possible just to be sure. I did that by substracting some square and then seeing if that is another square (eg 49-25=24=/ a sq, 49-16=33=/ a sq).
After about 20 seconds I was so sure it was 25 I'd bet my life on it.
Dr. Sea 0 isn't square because you can multiply it with anything and it'll be 0.
0 likesDr. Sea
1 likeNo but they won't any longer be smaller than then the sum
You're wrong
The numbers which form such pairs are called Pythagorean triplets.
1 likeSteve Glen yesh
0 likesusuk
0 likesNo shit
0 likescianchetto4_ remember 51
0 likesThat's actually not the best way especially on the hot seat. The best way to do it is to remember pythagorean triples and see which number could be the hypotenuse of a right triangle with integral side lengths
0 likesJesus I kept thinking the two smaller numbers had to be the same fuck. me.
1 like+Austin McGregor now that rings a bell but I'm gonna need more bells to do it that way
0 likesnathan perez Ya fuckhead did you just say sum? Any number times itself is a square number.
0 likesajneufeld762 have you ever heard of the phytagoras theorem?3,4,5 is theost basic one...
0 likesI bet they dont even know what a square number is.
1 likethat's why the audience should have gotten it, but likely didn't, because they're only given 3 seconds to answer.
0 likesOr you can remember your geometry and the most common triangle in school.
0 likesPythagoras theorem
Ahhh I thought that you could only use the numbers that were shown. I almost got just was adding the wrong numbers
0 likesVideos like this make me think Socrates was right when he said the population wasn't smart enough to make democracy work.
1 likeIt's not his fault. He made the objectively best choice for someone that doesn't know the answer. The stupid audience is at fault
0 likesnah this is a hard question when under pressure
0 likesMath is not about memorizing answers, it's about drawing lines from one concept to another and learning how logic works.
1 likeThe required knowledge of concepts is this:
All of those numbers are square numbers. Square numbers are numbers resulting from other numbers multiplied by itself.
The question then asks :
Which of these numbers can be resulted by adding together two numbers, each of which can be a product of numbers multiplied by themselves?
If you can't hold onto these thoughts for long enough to answer the question, it is because you are stupid - not because math is useless.
Replies (1)
Was it impossible for you to formulate your comment without sounding like a jerk?
0 likesOr are you one of those people who are always like "I say whatever the hell I want"?
Wake Forest Mathematics department represent ✊
0 likesRegardless of his math skills, remember that he is under a bunch of pressure.
32 likesReplies (2)
Yes but he has as much time as he needs. He could have done some quick maths....
2 likesBut the audience wasn't.
3 likesWhich of the sqaure numbers, sqaure is the sum of two smaller sqaure numbers?
0 likesI thought the question was asking which square number is the square of a square number as I'm sure most of the audience was thinking the same. They're not wrong √16=4 √4=2 and 2+2=2^2=4
0 likes4^2=16.
Were they asking which square number is the sum of two "different" square numbers should have put emphasis on different numbers. 9+16 or 3^2+4^2=5^2 it's the damn Pythagorean theorem 🤔🔥⭕
Replies (2)
A "square number" is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
2 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Looking at this set, the only number in the set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 the point I was making is that 16 is 4 squared or 2 squared times 2 squared
0 likesMeaning it's just as correct an answer as 25 being the sum of 4 squared plus 3 squared correct? Oh dude whoosh. I just realized that I was multiplying instead of adding. 🌴💀👌🏻
19% of the audience can work with surds at least
0 likes3^2 + 4^2 =5^2 is mathematically the simplest pythagorean triple (set of numbers that satisfy the question's condition), and if I remember correctly, it's commonly taught in north America to students between ages 10-13 lmfao.
0 likesIn short, this man (and most of the audience) literally cannot do middle school math (and American middle school at that lmao)
Pythagoras theorem goes brrr
0 likes16 plus 9, my man!!!!!! ARGHHHHH
16 likesThey didn’t specify it had to be squared integers, so technically all of them are correct.
0 likesReplies (1)
Square numbers by definition are the square of an integer.
0 likesthis is a vocabulary question. If you understand the word "sum" (adding) and the word "squares" (like the first six squares: 4,9,16,25,36,49)
0 likesyou just look at the first 6 squares in your head and see which TWO of the SIX add up to one of the choices. Therefore, NOT A.....NOT B.....Yes C. Done.
With right vocab, you get the answer in about 4 seconds.
This is really shameful for the US. I would bet the same kid and the audience could answer any question about the Kardashians correctly.
0 likesI would have chosen A just in order to see what the girl would say when you explained that 16=4^2 + 0^2 perfectly answers the question as asked.
0 likesReplies (2)
Note the "smaller" in the question. This excludes the 0^2 + n^2 = n^2 option.
0 likes@mambdaAgreed! Btw, she did not even mention that the numbers are integers ;-)
0 likesAnswer was 25 cuz 16+9=25. Figured it out in like 2 secs. He was under a lot of anxiety and pressure so maybe he was too nervous to think it through.
1 likeSometimes hosts drop hints whether the answer is right or wrong... She literally told him that he still has lifelines and should probably consider using
63 likesReplies (1)
The host doesn't know the answer. Well, unless it's obvious to them like in this case. Still though, the answer is revealed after they've locked it in for both of them.
1 likeisnt this correct for all options? x^2+0^2=x^2
0 likesReplies (1)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because a number cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot be the sum of itself and 0.
2 likesAll around the world we watch shows where someone is asking random Americans questions about basic knowledge because their answers are enormously stupid.
0 likesAmerica ki audience bhi tagdi hai😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likesIt's not a math problem; it's a grammar/logic problem. Your knee-jerk reaction is to add the same factors that make the square, but that doesn't work. It's hard to suss when you're under pressure. That's why they asked it.
0 likesDamn the audience is scary !!
0 likesHis math teacher be squeezing her stress ball down to atoms right now
17 likesJust go through the squares, starting with 1 in your head.
0 likes1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49.
Now just see, if a pair of those numbers, adds up to one of the answers. 9+16 = 25
So, the squares of 3 (9) and 4 (16) added up, equal 25, which is answer B.
I feel bad for the guy, trusting the audience on this one.
To be fair, I’ve taken every level of math offered at my school for engineering students (which is all of them except a few proof classes) and at first I thought it was 16 because I didn’t fully understand the question, my brain jumped immediately to the square roots of each, then knowing 4^2 is 16 and 2^2 is 4 I was like “oh this is easy”, which is what I imagine the crowd did too. But reading the question again I realized it was the “sum” of two squares which is much harder than just a product of two squares. Although, this question is sort of a Pythagorean triples problem, and a 3, 4, 5 forms a Pythagorean triple, so I already knew 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, so 25 is the correct answer. This isn’t necessarily “not knowing math”, it’s “not reading the question carefully enough”.
88 likesReplies (16)
True I'm in a uni career too and I had to trial and error all of the possible sum combinations
5 likesGuy, the pythagoream triple is just a coincidence...the question was asking for the SUM of TWO squares...
3 likesalso...the question wasnt a trick nor difficult to understand..and it should only take 5 minutes to go through the squares smaller than 49 (which narrows it down a shite ton) that add up to anything in the choices....its really bad that he or he audience couldnt figure it out...other countries will def laugh at US, (you and me both) if they ever see this vid..we should delete it LOL
1 likeThat answer doesnt make any sense at all..I had "A" in both college Algebra 1 & 2 and Calculus...the answer is to that question is "A" = 16...not 25..
1 likeThe square root of 16 is 4 which also a sum of 2 small square roots of 4 each.. so it becomes the sum of square root of 4 each which is 2 +2 =4
@King Kweku It specifies which of the answers (16, 25, 36 or 49) is the sum of two squares. Not "The square root of these answers is the sum of another square number"
3 likes@King Kweku Then you misunderstood the question. If you claim 16 is correct, then there are only 1,3,9 that are smaller square numbers. You cannot add those to get 16.
4 likesThe next option is 25. Then there are 1, 2, 9, 16 that are smaller square numbers. 9 + 16 = 25. Those are the smaller square numbers.
@King Kweku Clearly the American school and college system is quite a failure to behold. Square numbers are unambiguously defined as numbers that are themselves equal to the square of a positive integer number. If you are talking about the sum of two square numbers, that means you take the sum of two numbers that each follow the given criterion. This is the "sum of two square numbers", that weird thing you described is just the square of a sum and is worthless for this consideration.
0 likes@Kaiser Wilhelm this has nothing to do with American schools...it's all about understanding the question and using the right concepts...I checked it out again and realised the answer is 25...because none of the multiple choice equals to the SUM of 2 small squares, but only 25 does.....and that's why I deleted my previous comment...and this has absolutely nothing to do with schooling in America or elsewhere...it's about reading the question carefully and understanding the math language so you can apply the right concept or formula to find the right solutions...the square of a number could either be explained as the square root of that number example is (square of 9 is 3, 16 is 4, etc..) or that number squared example is (3)^2 is 9 and (4)^2 is 16, etc...
1 likethe question should have been more precise in the math language used...they should have used "SQUARED" but not "square"
@King Kweku I'll concede that this might not be correlated to American schools, but you can't deny that the American school system is bad
0 likes@Kaiser Wilhelm not really...I studied in Africa, Europe, the carribean and finally in NY trying to get my Nursing Degree...it actualy depends on the material been taught and the American system of education ...I realised that it's Harder to pass in those other countries but a bit easier to get through the educational system in America...not a substantial difference but it's just a different approach to teaching and learning with its flexibility in some courses...though we also have lots of tests, quizes, assignments, research, surveys, etc every now and then, just to prepare you for the real world in your carrear goals. So we all have to constantly keep up with the study material constantly through out the entire course as different chapters unfold...other countries may pack up everything you need to know at a early stage with lots of theoretical studies and less practical knowledge, you know alot but how do you apply it in the real world??..All educational systems have their ups and downs and it all depends on the courses one is pursuing, but I can definitely say that the North American system though may be easier in (Canada and USA) compared to other countries, but they also have a very practical carrear driven approach to education.
1 like@King Kweku You are precisely pointing out the worst aspect of the American school system and somehow called it a positive. It's not a good thing if education is only reduced to the purpose of creating the most efficient workers in the shortest possible time space. The fact that a politician like Donald Trump can win elections in the USA using the most obvious lies to the point where some people even drank desinfection liquid on his advice is a very powerful example for how heavily they are lacking a school system that provides some general knowledge and teaches critical thinking. A good education system has to teach mental skills beyond what is going to be required for work otherwise the population will increasingly not know anything that isn't functional, but yet meaningful.
0 likesMaybe it'd help your engineering level brain to not jump to conclusions before comprehending the entirety of the question.
0 likes@prtnrs any sum of two squares forms a valid set of triangle side lengths (as per the Pythagorean theorem) but I guess if it’s an integer then it is a Pythagorean triple lmao, it is not a coincidence. Math is interconnected, like how ANY time you find pi in an equation you can find a circle somewhere in the derivation.
0 likes@Kaiser Wilhelm idk man, I just cited my own peer-reviewed published journal paper from my research in an academic assignment. Doing pretty well, plus I’m in aerospace engineering so I think the US has the unique ability to speak about education in that field (touch the moon, loser)
0 likes@JuanHuangWonOneYuanOnce silence, technician
0 likes@Kade Nielsen lol you dweeb. You wrote one comment, then deleted it, then wrote an even more moronic comment.
0 likesYou clearly do spend more time on a YouTube video than you let on - the need to reply to every criticism is a clear indication of the low sense of self worth you have.
Just move on with your life man. People will never stop harassing you about your original comment until you decide to delete it.
Move on man.
I guessed every number except 25. I don't know what a square number is. I think I learned what that is a long time ago but I don't remember.
0 likesReplies (1)
It’s a number multiplied by itself, like 3*3=9. It comes from a square having sides of equal length.
0 likesThey had not mentioned about integer no. Therefore all answers are correct
0 likes3^2+√7^2=16
Similirly all others.
Replies (1)
A square number is a whole number whose square root is an integer. The square numbers up to 49 are:
0 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number from this set that is the sum of two smaller square numbers is 25.
The question is confusing though.
1 likewhy the audience trolling him 😂
77 likesReplies (9)
The audience was trolling him? They wan’t to lose money?
1 likeThey weren't trolling him. The question takes more thought than to regurgitate something you heard in class, or on the radio, or saw on TV, a million times.
1 like@OneWeirdDude I understand the difficulty of the question, as I just saw it before making my comment. I was referring to the audience, who answered the question that they weren’t 100% sure about. They made his chances even worse by giving unnecessary input. Why help someone if you are unsure about it yourself?
1 like@JereJK I dunno. Too excited to abstain from the vote?
0 likes@OneWeirdDude Well that’s a theory. But no excuse for screwing him over.
0 likes@JereJK What can I say, it's not like his life was on the line, or like he was donating to charity, or something. Perhaps if the audience was offered $5 each for a right answer or something?
0 likes@OneWeirdDude Now that rewatched the whole thing, I now see the audience clapping after he just lost $15k. Not even a sigh or anything. They started clapping. That’s all I have to say.
0 likes@JereJK That's all right. I just figure sighs or groans won't bring back the money he lost. "Good job, at least you tried."
0 likes@OneWeirdDude That works
0 likesAnswer is B 25. We can solve it by Pythagoras Theorem. 3² (9) + 4² (16)= 5²(25)
0 likesTechnically, couldn't it also be 16 because 4^2+0^2=16+0=16?
0 likesReplies (1)
No, because 16 is not a smaller square number
1 likeRead the question again, I also got confused
Try to remember Pythagorean triplets
0 likesIt's the most easy Pythagoras triplet...
1 like3^2 +4^2=5^2..
I wish there should be Asians audience
Very difficult question for 16k
0 likesAll math teachers have left the chat:
129 likesit appears that room was full of people who don't know the most classic example of the Pythagorean theorem...
0 likesU can also say √26² + √23²= 49 so logically all answers are correct
0 likesReplies (1)
Neither of those are square numbers.
1 likeA square number is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number from this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which is 16 + 9.
The old 3, 4, 5 right triangle can tell you the answer.
1 likeThis was a tough one. It took me a full minute to think it through. Once I remembered that 1, 4 and 5 are square numbers, and 2 and 3 are not, that made it easier. I think the term "square" may be throwing some people off, because they're thinking of the written shape of the numbers.
0 likesReplies (1)
If people are thinking about the shape of numbers then they will never get any math problem correct!
1 like😂😂
0 likesAudience: gives the wrong ans
29 likesAlso audience after realising that he lost because of them: "let's give him a big round of applause"
Well it didn't say squares of Natural Numbers. So if we take 0 into consideration, all of them are correct.
0 likesReplies (1)
A square number is a whole number whose square root is also a whole number. “Square” number is different than “squared” number.
0 likesAlso, the solution is a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Yes, 0 + 16 equals 16, but 16 is not smaller than itself.
The only correct answer is 25 = 16 + 9
25 is 5 squared, 9 is 3 squared, and 16 is 4 squared. 9 plus 16 is 25
0 likesTook me a bit of time after pausing i
0 likest, but after I figured it was 25 it seemed pretty obvious.
Isn't 0^2 also a square? Thus making all answers possible
0 likesReplies (2)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. Therefore, the answer can't be the sum of 0 and itself because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
1 like@LaughingStock55 oh yeah right
0 likesThis is way to easy for 16000$
2 likes"That day, I lost trust in humanity"
18 likesPretty simple if you know the first few squares by heart. 1x1=1, 2x2=4, 3x3=9, 4x4=16. Adding the last two (9+16=25) and Bingo, we have a winner. Do it in your head in 30 seconds. If the MC would just stfu for 30 seconds and let him concentrate...
0 likesSuper simple if you know Pythagorean Triples.
0 likes3, 4, 5 is 9, 16, 25 (squares).
B
The audiance would actually do better if they all typed randomly
0 likesEvery option is right. 4^2 + 0^2 = 16, 5^2 + 0^2 = 25 etc
1 likeReplies (2)
The solution must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers.
1 likeWhile 16 + 0 does equal 16, the number 16 cannot be smaller than itself.
The only correct answer is 25, which is the sum of 16 and 9.
@LaughingStock55 Right, I overlooked the smaller part :)
0 likesWhat did she mean around 1:27 that they both agree the number isn’t right? I know she’s talking about the two graphs but what number isn’t right?
0 likesFor those wondering: When added all together, the Harry Potter books contain 1,084,170 words.
81 likesReplies (7)
I was wondering and couldn’t sleep at night. Thanks for clearing it up!
19 likessex
8 likesOh yea that’s right! Thanks!
1 likeWow he solved world hunger problem
5 likesOne day that will a £1,000,000 question on WWTBAM.
3 likesAnd that can't be a perfect square, since all perfect squares ending in 0 must end with at least two of them
2 likesThank you, this information is invaluable
0 likesThis is a maths question, you are bound to figure it out, by brute force at worst, since you're not limited by time.
0 likesThis makes him objectively stupid.
The two smaller squares are:
0 likes3 x 3 = 9
4 x 4 = 16
The sum of 9 and 16 is 25
Ok I was confused when the answer came up and realised if the question said “the sum of 1 smaller square number” it would be correct, I think so anyway
0 likesWhy wouldn't a 0 + 36 = 36 (both 0 and 36 are square numbers) be correct? The same applies to all the numbers given.
0 likesReplies (1)
Because 36 isn't smaller than 36. The question specifically asks for two "smaller" squares.
0 likes🤔 how'd he get into Wake Forest?
0 likesAtleast he got a $1000
42 likesReplies (1)
Wholesome 👌
0 likesEveryone out here talking about pythagorean theorem and all that, and maybe my way is just a more intuitive rather than theory-based approach... shouldn't you just start squaring all the lower numbers (just 1-6 would be fine) and then see if any two of the products add up to any of the four answers? 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36. 9 and 16 should jump out right away, easy math. This literally took me one second to solve.
1 like....and that one was so easy too.
0 likesLesson learned: Don't trust audience poll if you are not in India
0 likesReplies (1)
Stop this smug "in India people ace math" crap.
0 likesSo many different possible ways to work this out. I realized that I chose a really long way, I wrote down all square numbers 1-49 and checked whether adding two together would give me the correct answer. I noticed 16 and 9 added them together and I was granted 25.
49 likesReplies (8)
That's the easiest! Also, if you remember pythagoras' theorum and the 345 triangle, that gives you the answer as 3 squared + 4 squared = 5 squared ie. 9 + 16 = 25!
6 likesoh yikes 😭 it's okay, choosing different ways to solve a problem is always a good exercise for ur brain
5 likesI took an even longer approach. I went to school and spent the first 18yrs of my life learning amongst other things basic mathematics. I finally managed to solve this puzzle.
5 likesWell he can’t write things down up there.
1 likeYou don’t even need to think much. The greatest choice is 49, and since we want the sum, then you only have perfect squares 1,4,9,16,25,36 to consider. Why even consider something greater than or equal to 49?
2 likes@RBT-000 most people are less logical when it comes to Math than you think
0 likes@JustinMplayz it's just about practice, I know, it may sound like a long way to solve a problem but just consider he's not used to solve these kind of problems in his daily life, so it's totally understandable that he choose that way
0 likesTake m,n positive integers with m>n. Then the infinite set of Pythagorean Triples (a,b,c) satisfying
0 likesa^2 + b^2 = c^2 is given by the generator formula: k(m^2 - n^2, 2mn, m^2 + n^2), for any k positive integer.
Proof:
(k(m^2 - n^2))^2 + (2kmn)^2 = k^2(m^4 - 2m^2n^2 + n^4 + 4m^2n^2)
= k^2(m^2 + 2m^2n^2 + n^4) = (k(m^2 + n^2))^2
The condition m>n>0 ensures that a,b,c>0 (obvious).
m = 2 and n = 1 gives the basic Pythogarean Triple (3,4,5) in the primitive case k = 1. k simply means that any scalar multiple of a Triple is also a Triple.
Omg I misread the question and thought I had to find TWO answers. I don't know why because that doesn't fit with the format of the show
0 likesRip pythagorean triplet
0 likesTo all who may read this comment let me simplify why the question was perfectly fine, and why many comments in this comment section are wrong.
144 likesOne: A "square number" refers to a perfect square, that is, a number that is the product of an integer squared. No, you would not be able to use square root 5 in an answer
Two: To those of you saying "0^2 + 4^2 = 16", the question specified the two numbers had to be smaller.
Replies (10)
Cheeze Pizza hang on, it'something you know from grade 7 or 8 i belive, it' awkard that none of this people was able to give an answer...
10 likesCheeze Pizza also, 0^2 is 1
0 likesmatthew stein 0^2 is zero not one.... 2^0 IS one
34 likesmatthew stein omg are you stupid? Look at Muhammad’s comment for explanation
3 likesCheeze Pizza:
0 likesWith the 2 smallest numbers (real number): -4 and -3, the result remains 25.
(-4)^2 + (-3)^2 = 16+9 = 25
Cheeze Pizza square root 5 is irrational
0 likes@M. Hélazior That doesn't disprove anything though. If anything it further proves the answer.
1 likeJulian VH: Precisely, I went in the direction of Cheeze pizza and I showed that even admitting the irrational (whose zero) the result remained 25 (because -4 and -3 are smaller than 0 and 4:)). So even if the question was asked incorrectly, it did not change the result.
0 likesI hope I didn't misinterpret any information.
0 likes(Basically, I'm not English)
Ah no, you're fine. I thought you were someone who didn't know what was going on but acting smug. Sorry
0 likesRip Audience 🙇
0 likesI’m stuck between c and b ima say c tho imagine it’s all 😂😂AYO IT WAS B I feel like the audience did that in purpose.
0 likesI thought it was 16 at first as well because I misunderstood the question. I thought it meant like, if you square a number and then you square it again you get one of the answers, in which case it would be 16 (2>4>16)....Yeah, I did realize I read it wrong like 5 seconds later but if I was in the audience I may have given him the wrong hint entirely by accident
15 likesReplies (1)
3*3+4*4=25 why don't Indian question paper never have such question they give complex
0 likesLiterally a 3,4,5 triangle!
0 likesDidn't even get the question to be honest
3 likesAnd the audience were clapping
92 likesMe:What will I do with math in the future.
0 likesTeacher: it's useful.
Me:like in wot?
What Teacher thinks will happen if I don't learn:
Shows the US Education system so we'll... A few learned Pythagoras where the most weren't even paying attention.
1 likeThis question is NOT poorly worded in any way whatsoever. The fact that the word "SUM" is there clearly shows that the question is talking about how the 2 smaller square numbers are ADDED and not multiplied. Just because people "tend to think this way" when the question is first heard does not mean it is poorly worded. After all, this contestant (and anyone with a middle school education) CLEARLY had enough time to test out all of the answers. Also, this question was worth $15,000, probably a sign that one should THINK before answering. These people were simply too quick to come up with an answer without thinking critically. That does not mean that the question was worded poorly. It means that they were dumb.
332 likesReplies (18)
HEAR HERE!
1 likeI've never heard "square numbers". One would be more familiar with "perfect square" or something similar.
18 likesif it said "any two other smaller square numbers" then I would agree with you. two mentions of square numbers in two different ways, this is why some small paragraphs are the worst to solve in some assignments cause it's easy to misinterpret
1 likeK.C. 9 + 16 is 25. Both of those smaller numbers are square. No need for multiplication.
5 likesAlthough, if you did want multiplication, you could go with 16 if you prefer them the same ((2^2)^2). If you prefer the numbers different, then go with 36 ((2^2)*(3*2)_
1 likeBut any number can fit that criteria: 16 is root of 10 squared + root of 6 squared
0 likes36 is 4 squared + root of 20 squared
Technically should have said rational numbers but considering that would make all the awnsers right this is just fine
English is not my first language and even I understood the question and got b.25 as the correct answer... the question is clear to me
2 likesIf 'Sum' reffers to numbers that have been added up,
1 likeHow would you call the outcome of a multiplication? Isnt that also called the sum?
Tycho van Ravensteijn it's called a product you uneducated fool
8 likesI must agree with you on that bit about coming up with an answer too quickly. I do it sometimes myself and the reasons why I do it are because maybe I don't want to spend too much time overthinking the problem that I'll get tired and bored and would want to do something else; something which I don't have to think as much but can still do it with no problems whatsoever. I heard that one uses 10% of their brains and I think that the reason this is so is because if we used anymore, it might result in headaches, migraines, it might damage our health and 10% just seems like the safety point before all of that happens. Another reason could be silly pride, in that I'm trying to show off and prove something not only to myself, but to the people watching or reading this comment. Another reason could be that I just decided to give my brain a break and let somebody else do the thinking while I do the watching; take the load off, you know? And when the pressure's on me, I try very hard to honestly answer the question, but not everything is coming to me as quickly as I would like and I'm just going with what I have and hope it's enough. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If I think of any other reasons, I'll be sure to let you know.
0 likesEnglish isnt my first language thank you verry much
0 likesCSpan1993 True, I was almost 100 percent certain it was 16 due to the wording.
2 likesThe question is indeed poorly worded. You're an idiot.
2 likesYou do realize underwriters DON'T want people to win, right? That's why simple answers in Jeopardy do their best to throw off contestants.
1 likeshut up
0 likesThis question is absolutely worded incorrectly in that the word “square” is used interchangeably as to mean perfect square number like 4 16 25 36 and also a squared number like 4^2 3^2. The question should read Which of these square numbers (or even more clear perfect square but square is acceptable) also happens to be the sum of two smaller squared numbers.
1 likeWhatever you say l d
0 likesK.C. Took me longer to understand the question than solving it lol
0 likesThis is the easiest right triangle man
0 likesIf she had asked which was the PRODUCT of two smaller square numbers, 16 would be the correct answer.
0 likesI really read the question completely wrong. By another square I was looking at 4x4 and I noticed 4 is a perfect square as well. I did not think about Pythagorean Theorem at all. This is very embarrassing but good that I now realize I have to learn how to read the question.
32 likesReplies (4)
I have been known to repeat many English class.
9 likesYou don't even need to know the Pythagorean Theorem at all to answer this..... you just need to know what a square number is
10 likesnoueis the pythagorean ttheorem is based off this concept which is what he was getting at, if you can solve this question you can solve any pythagorean question.
1 likeHello
0 likesHonestly it is a confusing question
0 likesThe problem was, that he didn't realize what he had been asked about)
0 likesIf your audience had been Korean, you would have got the answer B in a 100 percent.
563 likesReplies (21)
Jose Flores . To be more accurate : if the audience had been Korean math teachers.
36 likesJose Flores . And also , for more accuracy, you should say : north Korean math teachers.
30 likesJose Flores . And for greater accuracy : not starving north Korean math teachers.
36 likesTavi Ariton Pretty sure you meant South Korean
6 likesOr Japanese
3 likes[RS] HJfod . Starving south Korean ???
3 likesTavi Ariton No, not starving south korean teachers
2 likesHaha thats partly true, if the audience were asians lol, not including the middle east tho!
5 likeslol or pretty much any asian
6 likesIf your audience had been everyone in this Comment section, you would have got the answer B in a 100 percent.
3 likesOr anyone from Asia
1 likeMorrocons are smart in math
1 likeIndian too
3 likesDhruv Ahuja thank u please cum again
1 likeyou fucking racist piece of shit
1 likeHipHop101Tv STFU
1 likeHipHop101Tv India exports software and Pakistan exports terrorists.Women are treated like bitches in Pakistan.So stfu.
1 likeHipHop101Tv the bastard got trolled
2 likesRaman Ailawadhi Thank u please cum again
1 likeedit: 🙏🏿*
First of all my skin colour is neither black nor brown.
1 like2ndly stop arguing with Indians.We aren't ur ENEMIES.CHINA IS. China is selling phones and laptops full of spyware in your country. MOREOVER China is kicking your big asses in trade war. U can't easily spy on then coz they have banned Google, Facebook and WhatsApp in their country.
Tavi Ariton lmfao
0 likesI thought (2^2+1^2)^2=25. But anyway my answer was 👍 true
1 likeHe is a business major
0 likesTop Ten Anime Betrayals
1716 likesReplies (8)
Jeffrey Yang xD gg
0 likesDamn u Griffith!
2 likesLmfao
0 likes😂😂😂
0 likesWoah haven’t heard that one before 🙄
0 likesᴋʀɪsᴘʏ ᴋʀᴇᴀᴍ ᴋʀᴇᴡ What a party pooper you must be eh?
0 likesJeffrey Yang i dont know..but i was looking for this comment
0 likesTop 10 overused memes
0 likesI don't even know what a square number is. English is not my first language so that might have something to do with it. But I have the feeling in my native language I would also have no idea. Math for me is more boring than just watching paint dry.
0 likesReplies (1)
Square numbers are numbers that you get when you multiply a particular number by itself.
1 like1x1 = 1
2x2 = 4
3x3 = 9
4x4 = 16
So square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, etc.
The question is asking which of the numbers given in the answers can be gotten by adding together 2 smaller square numbers. The answer is 25, because 9 and 16 are square numbers, and 9 +16 = 25.
Basically it mean right angle triangle of 3 4 5 side😂
0 likesFortunately, democracy doesn't prevail in math
13 likessomeone noticed that this video was posted 15 years , litreally when youtube started
0 likesMeanwhile Pythagoras I'm joke to you??
0 likes2 plus 2 is 4, minus 1 that's 3 quick maths
608 likesReplies (15)
Song for idiots.
23 likesEveryday mans on the block, smoke trees
53 likessee that girl at the park
10 likesUnknown Horse And then there's this. 3^2 is 9, 4^2 is 16, 9+16=25 slow maths.
15 likesUnknown Horse nah mate it’s 16
1 likeMaffs* ;)
2 likesWHEN DA TiNG WENT quack quack quack
6 likesGreat story. Compelling and rich.
2 likesYou man were ducking
3 likesVictorem 101 hold tight asnee
1 likeUnknown Horse He's got the pumpy
2 likeshe's got the frisbee
0 likesHalf-Life 3 confirmed?????
1 likeI trap trap trap on the road, movin' dat corn flakes
0 likesquick maffs*
0 likesRepping Wake Forest well lmao
0 likesPythagoras lol'd
0 likesAs a 57 yr old, I'm embarrassed to say that I hated and failed at higher level mathematics. I did however excel in English. Therefore, I cannot solve an Einstein math theorem, but I can aid in explaining it in modern English.😭
22 likesReplies (11)
don't worry i can't even do basic mental math quickly that's how much of a disappointment i am
5 likesJust to be clear, this question is not high level math. Everybody who learned basic algebra has answered this question, which should mean anyone with a high school diploma
7 likes@funneh time🗿 You're not alone...
1 like@ShadowGuy no like i can't solve 88 x 2 quickly in my mind, i take time to solve it, that's how dumb i am, especially when i am 14 years old
1 like@funneh time🗿 Well neither can't I
0 likes@ShadowGuy well how old are you?
0 likesit's fine, this is just high school algebra and not calculus. even I had to pause and think since I haven't done these problems in a while since high school.
0 likesYou can explain multi-dimensional calculus in modern English? I call bullshit.
1 likeI do not recommend putting a mathematical topic into words unless you know how to explain it extremely well, for that you must first understand it.
0 likes@Alexis Get over yourself. This is Youtube, not 'Look at me, I'm a Harvard grad' website.' So I worded my reply incorrectly. Please forgive me.
0 likesironically, the main difficulty in this question is in understanding the English description of what is being asked
0 likesdamn the audience
0 likesHm. Math studies in this coutnry should definitely be improved…
0 likesI got the right answer. You can send the money to my paypal account.
294 likesReplies (4)
😂😂😂😂😂
6 likesAndrew_Owens same lmao
4 likes@Keur 😂😂😂
5 likes😀😀😀 BTW my bank account is always Ready to receive money.
3 likesNo matter whatbanyone says that's a dam hard question
0 likesI'm guessing 16 let's see if I'm right...
0 likesOk...
Watching this got me so pissed off. I was screaming B at my screen. A recent report went out, showing that 78% of adults have the maths skills of an year old...
15 likesReplies (12)
I understand. I find the mathematical literacy of many adults rather appalling. I also find the sheer ignorance that people have towards math, is disgusting. Loads of people can say the name Pi or quote a basic theorum (pythagoras ect) and act all high and mighty, but very few seem to be able to apply these, or know what they are used for.
1 likeAnd you have the equivalent English skills "of an year old"... THE IRONY.
25 likeswoops! I typed it up on my phone. The mathematical literacy was that of a nine year old.
9 likesit's common sense a square has the same length base and height. all you gotta do is multiply! smh seriously no hope for americans. it's no wonder the world laughs at us..
2 likes78% of adults don’t know anything about anything.
1 likeALLYOUWANTREDHOTS Wait, what? 25 is not a shape. It is a number. While squares DO have the same width adn height, a square number is slightly different.
0 likesYou square two integers and you add them to get one of the answers.
exactly a square has the same base and height. now what is the area of a square with a side length of 5? you get 25. therefore the number 25 is a square.
0 likes25 is also the sum of two smaller squares. those squares with the side lengths 3 and 4. producing the areas 16 and 9 which add to be 25. get it yet?
0 likeslazyweapons
0 likesNo. You can't save yourself. It's too late. Your hypocrisy has doomed you.
I THINK HE JUST MISHEARD THE QUESTION OR RELIED ON THE AUDIENCE BECAUSE SHE SAID SUM!
0 likesThe wording of the question made you think that it was A. When it says the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, it makes you think 2 and 2, because you can multiply and at the same 2 numbers to get the same answer, which is 4. Given the answer of 16, it makes you want to back track it. It it a very misleading question, and If the question was reworded a bit, he and probably the audience would've gotten it. If you replaced A with any other square number, the question might have been a little bit more obvious.
0 likesmaybe in america only
0 likesbro i’m way younger than him and i knew this
0 likesIts insane that the audience vote when they isnt sure... 16 ouh haha? :O
0 likesI’m astonished how poorly the audience performed on that question. This has got me really doubting our education system.
18 likesReplies (4)
What are you talking about, if I was in the audience, I would try to trick the contestant with the most plausible seeming wrong answer every time. That doesn't make me uneducated, that just makes me a dick.
4 likesAnd this video is over 14 years old. Still declining, and rapidly, by the generations imo.
0 likeseducation system lmao.. just by knowing what square numbers are?
0 likesJoel Roy That's stupid. If someone wants to drop out of school they should be able to. Their life is in their own hands. The only people that should be able to object are their parents. I
0 likesI love how he pretends for one minute like he was thinking, when he clearly doesn't even know what a square number is :D
64 likesWould zombies even eat the stupid 50% audience's brains ?
719 likesA. No
B. Absolutely no
C. Definitely no
D. All of the above
Replies (34)
E
70 likes@R. A. and what is the answer for letter E?
1 like@jojo shua The audience has no brains
14 likesAll of the above
3 likesF
4 likesA
1 likeF
3 likesA
0 likesD
1 likeError 404: Brains not found
12 likesC
0 likesD
0 likesPlot twist. They are all zombies.
6 likesC.
0 likesthey would starve
5 likesLol
1 likeHe already answer 7 question LOL
0 likesWhich brain?
2 likesD
0 likesC
0 likesMultiple choice answers only found on SATs
1 likeThat's not fair. 30% of them got it right.
1 likeZ. Yes
0 likesdersnakeinmyboot N. Nope
1 likeZ
0 likesI suppose I need a using of the option "audience's help"
0 likesD
0 likesD :D
0 likesE looks like the correct one
0 likesc
0 likes0
0 likes@jojo shua Despacito
0 likes@jojo shua
0 likesThe answer to E is E
Trick question. Zombies don't care about brain quality. You're thinking of ilithids.
0 likes25, i know from a 3-4-5 right triangle,
36 likesReplies (2)
they're called Pythagorean triplets
20 likesd3athblad3 ye forgot the name
0 likesHow does half an audience not know first grade math
82 likesReplies (21)
Keep in mind these people are the product of PUBLIC EDUCATION. Which political party fights tooth and nail to limit choice in education? That's right, the Democrats. Which political party makes it difficult to fire lousy teachers? That's right, the Democrats and their sacred teachers unions. Big Government doesn't care about you any more than teachers unions care about students.
10 likesfirecloud77 So where's you proof for this?
1 likefirecloud77
1 like1.More choice in educaton = less peple taking math classes. (not saying i am against it that linearly)
2.The other variable is, if enough people would work as a teacher, if they wouldnt have a secure job like that,
and by the way the problem is not lousy teachers if 70% of the audience got it wrong,(+ assuming some/many of the 30% were just lucky) so you want to fire over 70% of all Teachers in the USA to solve the problem? good luck with that.
3.Your last statement is just a mere claim.
You should maybe visit a logics class. I don't say the blatant accusations of +theWatchingDog are correct, but its just an empty polarizing political phrase.
Yours on the other hand claims to have content, so i can criticise your faulty logic. No offense intended.
The problem is far more multylayered and complex.
jonas samuel
2 likes>>>> More choice in educaton (sic) = less peple (sic) taking math classes. <<<<
Since when? How on earth did you come up with that false equation? And how did you manage to spell two words incorrectly in one sentence?
>>>> The other variable is, if enough people would work as a teacher, if they wouldn't have a secure job like that, <<<<
Huh? What in the world are you trying to say here? That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
>>>> so you want to fire over 70% of all Teachers in the USA to solve the problem? <<<<
Did I say that? NO, I didn't say that. But obviously that is one of the problems with public education. Teacher unions hold so much sway over politicians and administrators that it’s almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. In New York some teachers are paid not to work. Here, do some reading for a change: http://huff.to/1ppD6fj
>>>> The problem is far more multylayered (sic) and complex. <<<<
It certainly is, and you've added no new information to the discussion. All you did was make patently false claims borne of ignorance, complete with spelling errors, horrendous grammar, embarrassing punctuation and flawed logic.
You are obviously the product of public education!
firecloud77
0 likesHello, thank you for taking the time to answer, i am going to ignore you unnececary hate towards me, i am not a native speaker and i was really tired, when i left the comment. :)
(read for a change? interesting assumptions that you make about me^^.)
1.there is some interesting research on this, and pretty clear numbers.
Google: "Fear of math can cause real pain"
Math is really unpopular for the broad masses, so the assumption less people take it if there is more choice is pretty logical right?
2.I f you are not able to understand what i am saying okay, but you probably just want to hate a little more against me :)
I just say there is a reason why teachers have such secure jobs, i don't say it shouldnt be reevaluated.
3. I asked a question you answered, where is the problem?
4. i added another side to the conversation, i just say there is a reason why the things are like that, if its a good enough reason to keep it like that is another discussion. You make it appear (i read it like that at least) as if its completely irrational to limit choice in education and have some job security for teachers.
Have a nice day, and i hope you don't the people you meet in real life like that :). because then you would come of as pretty arrogant, and making assumptions about someone you don't know at all. (sorry i had to write that :). )
bb
Can`t agree more!! This is just like a first grade math problem!! This kind of math already appeared much enough in math calculation of any math problem, but they just don`t know the answer!!
0 likesBeing nervous in a game show is quite common, and especially for math, a clear mind is not meaningless.
1 likePeople that cant stand the pressure will be quite unable to calculate under stress, its not for everyone.
Its exactly the kind of question people will get wrong much more likely in such a situation compared to sitting in front of your computer without any fear or risk involved, and zero stress.
Even great mathematicians get basic math wrong if they have to make a show out of it, which is clearly not the same as doing your job in a quite working place with no expectations.
So that and the question is misleading, reading it slighty wrong and you simply get it wrong as you didnt understand the question.
If you would write the actual question in math symbols, people would be WAY more likely to get it, so its not really a math problem, its understanding the text and translating it into math beforehand.
***** stfu dumbass
0 likesNo 1st grader ( 5-6yr olds ) ever learns square roots - ever
7 likes(unless they're math prodigies, in which case they're not even in 1st grader anyways).
The only operations 1st graders learn is addition and subtraction.
Epic fail on your part to suggest otherwise.
If you asked the audience to guess the answer an average of 25% of the audience would get it right from pure luck, and one of the polls got 22%. Hahaha
1 likeamerican education system forces people to write haikus that they will never use within their life, but does not require elementary level math as portrayed by the level of math in most college entrance exams
0 likesand correction: only 22% of the audience chose the correct answer
0 likesThat isn't first grade math.
5 likesIt was a little confusing. Actually, only 30% of the people knew the correct answer...unless some guessed.
0 likesHelps...
1^2 = 1
2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16
5^2 = 25
They did get a very short amount of time to answer,,,
0 likesfirecloud77
0 likesyou never answered me? why is that?
Elementary school math is not standardized. I can't really see much practical use for this kind of math, so I am not surprised it is not taught universally.
0 likesAlso judging america based on the pool of the studio audience that goes to Who Wants to Be a Millionare post Regis era is just silly. That would have been a skewed demographic even when that show was popular.
It's just a dumb question to ask the audience. Probably the vast majority of them didn't bother to start to try out adding square numbers in their heads until they were suddenly asked to provide the answer and then they had about three seconds. How is anyone surprised they didn't come up with the right answer?
0 likesPenny Lane why would they need to add up square numbers?
0 likesThe fact that 3 4 5 is the lowest pythagoras triple should be a common knowledge
I am not sure what they are teaching kids these days but my Math teachers never mentioned these oh so important pythagoras triples. Do you have any justification for why that should be common knowledge? It seems like extraneous math trivia that serves no purpose.
1 likesneakyrabbits It's addition and multiplication... We learned all the skills necessary to figure this question out by 6th grade. A+B=C...
0 likesA/B= 1/4/9/16/25/36/49
C= 25/16/36/49
A or B can't be 1, not enough slope change. (16-1=15, not a square, ~3.9)
A or B can't be 2, not enough slope change. (16-4=12, not a square, ~3.5)
A can be 9 though. (16-9=7, not a square, ~2.6) (25-9=16, is a square)
As long as the smallest answer available - A/B > square of smallest answer - 1, the projected answer is not large enough.
Tada there is your answer, A and B are 9 and 16 and C is 25
With numbers that small, the practical method is trial and error. Just count up squares - there aren't too many possibilities:
29 likes1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. Now, which two of those sum to an answer choice? It's pretty easy to quickly eliminate:
1, 36, 49, leaving you with only 4, 9, 16, 25. The 9 and 16 jump out at that point. I'm really surprised at the audience polls. The average American is worse at math than I previously realized.
Replies (8)
Ilan Dor
1 like2.4^2 + 3.2^2 = 16. Both 2.4 and 3.2 are smaller than 4. 4^2 = 16, thus, 16 is a valid answer.
Go take your country-insulting bullshit somewhere else buddy. Mathematics is great :3
(Nowhere in the question did it say that the values had to be whole numbers)
masterkevkev Thank you for informing me of the greatness of mathematics, tough guy. Somehow, I managed to earn three STEM degrees without ever realizing it. As for your fractional example, I must admit, I didn't think of that - which apparently makes me worse at math than the 50% of the audience who did. I'm sure it's precisely what the contestant had in mind, too.
5 likesIlan Dor Then don't be pointing fingers, you stereotypical fuck. ^-^
0 likesAll of those answers (except for 49... I don't know a combination for that) would've been correct answers. It's just the wording of the question that fucked it all up :l
They should have made the question "Which Perfect Squared Integer can be made by combining the sum of 2 square integers smaller than the number required to make the Perfect Squared Number?"
Although that's a large question - it'd throw all of the multiple possibilities out the window (assuming you placed only one number that fits the question's rules, and the other 3 to be bogus).
***** - That name.
0 likes:3 - It needs to be defined as a Perfect Square Number. Theoretically the first 3 answers are correct but D is incorrect.
But you'll learn that differently past high-school c: ... I've already annoyed my head with finding out the calculations and fixing what people have said. I am not going to continue pointing out how wrong the question was and why the answer was not the only correct one.
***** In every comment section there's always someone looking to interpret the question in the most obscure way to sound like a smartass. This question was properly worded, square numbers are generally agreed to be squares of integers, stop wasting time with people who are out to prove something.
6 likesWon't Use Real Name s £(1@,
0 likesmasterkevkev Wrong. By academic consensus, "square numbers" are defined as perfect square integers only. Therefore, there was no need to specify. I notice you have failed to reply to others who have pointed out your foolishness. I suppose all your bravado and pseudo-intellectual failings are humiliating enough to keep you from ever returning to this video again. In your own words: "don't be pointing fingers", you idiotic fuck. ^-^
0 likesIlan Dor i have intelligence and knowledge but can't hold numbers in my head well. without pencil and paper this would be hard.
0 likesPythagoras would be very displeased in this video... 'nuff said
72 likesReplies (3)
Also to point out.... people get highly confused with "Square numbers." Square numbers are basically numbers that have roots of an integer, or whole number if you call it. examples of this are 1 (1^2) 4 (2^2) 9 (3^) and 16 (4^2). But then again, you have to figure out what the question is talking about. And that's when not knowing math can cost you $15,000...
2 likesI know right, the simplest triangle lol
0 likesyeah but he'd be amazed at the concept of television. 'nuff said.
0 likes70% of the audience are trolling
193 likesReplies (12)
Ur asian
0 likes@jhulian and?
15 likes@Yumiko hes asian¡¡¡¡¡
0 likesDon't underestimate human stupidity
5 likesThey are not. They are Americans 😋
3 likes@jhulian so?
9 likes@peace was never an option so he's Asian
0 likes@peace was never an option He's ASIAN!!
0 likes@peace was never an option HE'S ASIAN!!!
0 likesI see.
0 likesComputer people are mathematicians
0 likesWhats asian?
0 likesPeople: "The question isn't that clear!"
48 likesAlso people: "What is a 'sum' again?"
Replies (5)
The question is not clear enough. If they want to know X, so that X = A² + B², then any answers is right. 16 = √15² + 1²
2 likes"Sum" is such a common synonym for "whole," "group," and "total" that some people do not automatically think of it in its mathematical definition. Including me. 😅
0 likes@Alex Santos That's not a square number. A square number is integer, whose root is also an integer.
0 likes@Alex Santos This is the moronest comment I found under this video. The question was clear and you're not able to question yourself
0 likes@Alex Santos That's not the question, and it was perfectly clearly stated. People keep saying they thought it was a product but it says SUM right in the question. How anyone could possible gloss over the word "sum" in a maths problem worth 16K, I don't understand.
1 likeIt's funny how so many are quick to claim Americans as "dumb" because the country with the most immigrants from foreign countries is the U.S.
26 likesDon't be so quick to rudely judge, people. T__T
Replies (17)
offloading all the stupids
4 likesImmigrants generally don't contribute to anything.
0 likesMathematics
14 likeshttp://nbclatino.com/2013/07/21/10-uniquely-american-things-created-by-immigrants/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/12/ten-ways-immigrants-help-build-and-strengthen-our-economy
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigrants-have-enriched-american-culture-enhanced-our-influence-world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nataly-kelly/immigration-benefits_b_2523562.html
Research before you make assumptions next time.
That is a retarded assessment of the reality. Exactly how many first generation immigrants do you think the US actually has? That has nothing at all to do with why Americans are viewed as being dumb.
2 likesAnd why are Americans viewed as dumb? ZyklonB95
0 likesSolaniin Well we could start with the people running our country and then you might consider reality TV. Two pretty valid reasons to think our country is unintelligent.
4 likesJosh Griebel The people running our country? Dude, tell me one country that doesn't have dumb politicians. I can't believe people take reality TV seriously, it's all scripted.
0 likesJosh Griebel Two reasons.
4 likesAmericans will continue to vote against their bet interests, willingly. They eat very poorly, again, willingly and knowingly. Most Americans want socialist policies, but when asked what they think about socialism, they all say it is bad. Uniformed. Then you have one of the highest religious percentages of any developed country, which is a big one for me. Gullible and dumb.
ZyklonB95 I agree with you on every statement except the religion part.
0 likesSolaniin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population
0 likesThe US has most immigrants? Lol, where did you get that from?
KingOfParrots It's right there on Wikipedia. You linked it yourself. o_O
0 likesAnd I got it from usatoday.com
Solaniin Wow, you really are stupid, aren't you? You have to look at percentage, not actual numbers.
3 likesKingOfParrots Whatever, dude. Call me what you want, but I certainly don't see a shortage of schools being build where I live in America nor do I see a shortage of foreigners trying to enter.
0 likesSolaniin What your experiences are don't really matter, there's no denying that your first comment was ignorant as hell, and that's why I responded. I don't know what your problem is with foreigners, but you should really widen your views a bit more. You'd consider me a foreigner for example, but I'm not sure I'm the stupid one here because of that...
2 likesKingOfParrots I have zero problems with foreigners. The only statement I wanted to make from this video was that Americans should not be perceived as "dumb." I used immigration for a better education in the US as a primary example, but I guess I'm being misunderstood.
1 likewong tong I sh
0 likesA great many immigrants to the US from Asia are better at math than native-born Americans.
1 likeAudience thought that if this guy couldn’t answer such question, then he do not deserve $16,000.......
93 likesReplies (8)
Or they all have same problem as the guy.
4 likesBut how they passed school????
2 likesWho knows if they passed!!
2 likesRagingThunder true.
0 likesYour grammar doesn't deserve 16,000.
6 likesSwiftAssassin Why would a good grammar even deserve to even take 1$ dollar? Pathetic brat trying to roast the other guy for his stupidity
3 likesaliwalyd3 lol DAYUM dude roasted both of em
1 likeDolan Whiter 1$ dollar?😂😂😂😂😂
0 likesThe audience did him dirty, even if he knew the answer was 25 see that majority of the Audience chose 16 would make him question himself and chose the wrong answer.
61 likesReplies (3)
Sometimes the lifeline is the deadline.
1 likeI can see that happening but not with math.
2 likesI trust myself and I don't trust randoms with numbers 😂
If he knew it, he would have gotten it right.
0 likesAudience clapping after he lost, looks like audience wanted him to lose and they intentionally voted wrong and now they're celebrating their victory... 😂😂
42 likesReplies (1)
I saw that to and laughed so hard.
2 likesImagine he being in India and his parents watching this and saying
17 likes"That's why we asked you to choose maths and do engineering"
Replies (2)
Even i got the answer wrong probably coz of my bad English i thought the question said squaring a no. Then squaring it again to get answer but when i know that it was simple Pythagoras i feel really stupid and dissaponited in myself
1 likeI'm too a indian and my name is also Krishna
The trick is to choose math in grade school. You can’t skip it as a child and decide to take it up in college, but that’s the American way.
0 likesShould have phrased it "sum of two squared non-zero integers." All of them are sums of two numbers squared with infinite solutions. Besides that, 0^2 + 4^2 = 16, 0^2 +5^2 = 25 (in addition to 3^2+3^2), 0^2 + 6^2 = 36, 0^2 + 7^2 = 49. All are correct with the way this is phrased.
37 likesReplies (12)
Sum of 2 SMALLER square numbers, if you use 0^2 you have to use the same number as the square root of the number itself so the question is phrased right and have only one sulution ^^
13 likesSimon Liljeqvist You're right. It still doesn't rule out irrational solutions.
4 likes***** The question doesn't ask for the sum of two numbers squared; rather, it asks for the sum of two square numbers. This distinction is very important! The definition of a square number is an integer which is the square of an integer, so the question actually does rule out irrational solutions.
11 likesSimon Liljeqvist How do you define "smaller" though? If you take it to mean an absolute value of smaller magnitude then you are correct. If you take it to mean to the left of the original number on the number line then they are all solutions. This is because (-4)^2+0^2=16 etc.
0 likeskobeballer but (-16)^2+0^2 is not 16
0 likesSimon Liljeqvist sorry I meant (-4)^2+0^2=16, original comment has been edited
0 likeskobeballer Your objection doesn't work. A square number is the square of an integer.
2 likesEven using (-4)^2 and 0^2, the two square numbers you are working with are 16 and 0 (not -4 and 0). And 16 is not smaller than 16 no matter which definition of smaller you use.
MuffinsAPlenty damnit you're right
4 likeskobeballer (y)
0 likesYeah, but enough people got it wrong without the word "integer" being in the question, if you put that in we'd probably be looking at a mass suicide.
2 likesExactly, im pretty sure that complex or irrational solutions are not an option when questioned about square integers man.
0 likesNo it shouldn't have and you're wrong. Square numbers are derived by mulitiplying two of the exact same numbers. So you obviously don't know what a square number is
0 likesPlot twist: his phone a friend was a math professor.
21 likesFor those who are still confused, 25 is also the sum of 3 square and 4 square. Even a 12 year old can answer this
18 likesReplies (5)
14 and got this in 10-20 sec
0 likes@TerminatedMist Its a question of 2-3 seconds only, no need to take such long time. I guess you studied pythagoras theorem 2 years ago so it should be easy for you
0 likesmemorizing isn't doing math, it's just memorizing. it's not a general rule that n^2+(n+1)^2=(n+2)^2 for n...natural number. it holds for n=3 but thats all. still easy even if you try every possible combination.
0 likes@Dragokingprost people with neurodiveragent brains exist too, for them things like this may take some time to process, no matter how easy it is. so your statement sees incorrect "it should take 2-3 seconds"
0 likes@dearlantsov bro its a 1 month old comment, so chill. I understand that not everyone can learn at same rate.
0 likesI don't understand why the audience is voting without knowing the answer. Maybe because they want him to lose or because they stay anonymous and don't care about others. I don't know and I will never get it
170 likesReplies (7)
I think I know why, 16 is 4sq and 4 is 2sq, makes no sense but I guess they didnt understand the question
7 likesWell, they think they know the answer, so they're voting. Not that hard to comprehend.
1 likethe question is how did they get to the wrong answer on this simple question, didnt they check if it was correct?
0 likesL. Willis But if they were honest than they would know they are not right. Over self esteem
0 likes+Ulaş Aldağ maybe the audience is requiered to vote even if they dont know the awnser?
4 likesI'm pretty sure they all have to vote whether they know the answer or not
14 likesUlaş Aldağ Or maybe its a show where all is planned like 99% of Tv programme...
0 likesIt took me a lot of time understanding the actual question, granted English is not my first language
40 likesReplies (5)
same
1 likeEnglish is not my first language and I don't understand how the question was "poorly worded".
4 likes@AboodXD It wasn’t. People just forgot what a sum is.
4 likes@Owen Toad indeed.
1 like@Tom Ffrench What was unclear about the question?
0 likesI gotta be honest, I did not understand that question very well. It makes a little more sense after reading the comments, but I’ve been out of school for over 15 years and was never great at math to start with.
52 likesReplies (15)
bro Im taking calc BC and am one of the smartest people at math in my school and I got it wrong. I thought it was 36 because 6 was the sum of 3 and 3 but apparently that wasn't even the question. In my defense, no one uses the term square numbers
8 likes@Bob Bob Square numbers is common terminology in maths, maybe you're giving yourself too much credit.
5 likes@Baris Cepni Maybe but I really just haven't heard that term ever
1 like@Bob Bob So what term have you heard for square/squared numbers? It's so common I can hardly believe you haven't heard the term.
2 likes@0x2A honestly I just thought of square roots when I had heard that which is my bad
1 like@Bob Bob every positive number is a square root lol
0 likes@JustinMplayz I mean a perfect one
0 likes@Bob Bob yes, 1 is a square root of 1, 2 of 4, 3 of 9, and so on
0 likesUnless I misunderstood what you meant
@JustinMplayz 1 is not a square root of any of those numbers tf
0 likes@Bob Bob perfect squares and square numbers are the same thing
1 like@Rory Macdonald You seem to have misunderstood what I said, let me rephrase line by line
0 likes1 is a square root of 1
2 (is a square root) of 4
3 (is a square root) of 9
and so on
@JustinMplayz shiii I was tired as hell when i read your comment my b
1 likeIm calc 3 with all math class straight A. didn't understand the question either.
0 likesI'm 29 years old, despite hating math with a burning passion, I didn't used square numbers to anything until now for this video, so I can feel your frustration,
1 likebut, no amount of knowledge surpass a good heart, you can be seen as a genius everywhere you go but if you treat everyone with disrespect because they don't have the same knowledge as you, you'll be treated as a fool,
so it's never too late to relearn something you struggle with, you still have time to attain the knowledge that you didn't had in the past, surely it won't turn you into a genius but it'll make you see yourself as one,
you can do it champ 👑
@Muối Its a really simple question. The only reason you didnt understand is because you probably didnt know what square numbers meant. If you know what the square numbers, sum, and smaller means answering the question should be a piece of cake.
0 likesAll of them.
16 likes16 = 4^2 + 0^2
25 = 5^2 + 0^2
36 = 6^2 + 0^2
49 = 7^2 + 0^2
0 is a square number by any definition. They should have specified "smaller square non-zero numbers."
Replies (16)
They specified "smaller" square numbers, making the need for the word "non-zero" unnecessary.
10 likesAfter all, if you try 4^2 + 0^2, you have 16 as an addend which is not smaller than sum 16.
0 is not square. 0 x 0 is undefined
0 likesJarrod0067 0 x 0 is very much defined, and it is indeed 0. I think you're confusing multiplication with division here. 0/0 is not defined. But 0 x 0 = 0^2 is defined and is equal to 0.
3 likesMuffinsAPlenty May I note that 0/0 is, in fact, defined. However, we cannot determine its value, so we say it's indeterminate. For example, if you do the following:
0 likesLet x = 0/0
Multiply both sides of the equation by 0/1 to cancel out the bottom 0, since
((x/y)(y/1) = x):
x(0/1) = (0/0)(0/1)
You get the following:
0x = 0
While attempting a similar proof by stating x/0 = y (x ~= 0) will result in a failure, we can surely see that x exists, although it is no specific number; we cannot determine it. Therefore, it's indeterminate.
MuffinsAPlenty Right, thanks for the correction.
0 likesConnor Weeks I'm doing a Bachelor in Maths and I can say that 0/0 is clearly not defined : it has no definition.
4 likesThere is a huge problem in your proof : "Let x = 0/0 " has no sense (and therefore your proof too) because it's in the definition of the division that a/b has a sense only if b=/=0. You're manipulating 0/0 has if it was a real number but it's not, it has no sense at all. You're missing something, there are hypotheses and there are conclusions, "for any x, x/0 doesn't exists" is an implied hypothesis when you're using real numbers, it's not a conclusion of any calcul at all.
When you do Algebra you starts to define operation such as + or x and mathematicians have defined 1/x only if x=/=0. Same thing you can't divide vectors, there is no definition, it doesn't exists.
a square is when all sides are equal. in the case of square with length of sides = 0... The square is not there. so saying 0 is a square number is not true.
1 likethey asked two SMALLER square numbers.....wheres as 4,5,6,7 are not smaller ..rather they are equal. only B is the correct answer because 25 is the square of sum of smaaler numbers which are 4 and 3... that's it.
2 likesRalph Strocchia While some definitions of square number do not include 0, you will find that there are definitions of square number which include 0. Wikipedia and Wolfram MathWorld, for example, use a definition of square number in which 0 is a square number.
0 likesRalph Strocchia
0 likesNonsense. Even by your definition using a geometrical square, 0 qualifies in a vacuous truth.
The only way to call 0 a non-square is if you add some sort of literal exception in your definition.
wrong. 49 is not smaller than 49, so it cannot be a valid answer
1 likeConnor Weeks Well said man :) Hope you don't get to much troll hate for being smart and knowing what you talk about
0 likesSebastian Bach I hope Connor Weeks doesn't get any troll hate either. But why do you think he might get some troll hate?
0 likesthey already said "smaller" and its actually better to have said perfect squares. average person wouldve been scared by the term "non-zero"
0 likesLol
0 likes@Jarrod 0067 NOOOOOO
0 likesCommenting how the answer was easy from the safety and comfort of home is one thing.
41 likesAnswering correctly under pressure and on TV is another.
Replies (7)
even those audience are pressured?
2 likesThis is Middle school basic math.
0 likesLol😂
0 likesDid he even try ? Is that his best excuse, calling it 'pressure' for not even trying to understand and do the math?
2 likesIn other words, he's dumb, and so is the audience.
How is that even an appropriate question for 16k? Sure, the guy is under pressure but that still shouldn't prevent him from doing a simple calculation. It's not like the clock is ticking. Just take a minute and start doing the fucking math.
2 likes@The Old Man exactly 😂😂
0 likesThe audience were dumb! They were not under pressure.
0 likesWatches Prince Ea video about school
368 likesMe: School is useless
Watches this video
Me: ok nvm.
Replies (7)
KatzoMatzo
0 likes10000 subscribers without any video challenge .
0 likesWell you dont need school to know about this
9 likes@Kan Mi I mean, you kinda do. How would you know this without being taught it?
6 likesexcept it's not an actual use for maths, what I mean is that he didn't need to answer that in his daily life, it was a programme in which you can only win money, and lose money that you never had
2 likesRelatable
2 likesM V so instead of school we should just give kids a computer and hope they happen to stumble across it? Genius. You will make a great parent one day.
6 likesDont laugh at him, when you are at such pressure you literally loose the ability to think straight sometimes
16 likeseasy to say the answer from the comfort of your chair at home, now when there is thousands of $ on the line, and millions of people watching you live
Replies (3)
I thought Europeans and Americans are far better at maths than us asians💀
0 likesLaugh at his teachers.
0 likesThis man was a COLLEGE STUDENT, and he was utterly DEFRAUDED by those incompetent, corrupt, trough-feeding grafters.
More to the point, you don't "loose the ability", you "LOSE" the ability... Were you under pressure when you wrote that?
0 likestbh even with this wording I found this a pushover, but that’s probably since I’m really interested in math. Someone who didn’t really take interest in math would probably be confused under this pressure. But I gotta say, that audience must either be extremely ignorant or just trolling. No way only 30% got it right unironically.
59 likesReplies (9)
Don't forget these are americans
4 likes@Martin Merkez OHHHHHHH my bad
1 likeCan you explain why 25 is the right answer?
0 likes@Fernando Vargas Mejía Option A was 16. All the squares under 16 are 1, 4 and 9. No pair equals 16.
0 likesOption B was 25. As taught in geometry, 3² + 4² = 5², or 9 + 16 = 25.
Option C was 36. All the squares under 36 are: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25. No pair equals 36.
Option was D was 49. All the squares under 49 are: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 39. No pair equals 49.
And so, Option B (25) is the answer.
@Fernando Vargas Mejía 16+9=25. 16=4^2 and 9=3^2. this is a common fact that follows from the pythagorean theorem
0 likesDang that means I must be really dumb in Math I mean I never also figured it out until it was explained
0 likesAmerican republicans elected Trump, Lauren Boebert, Maggot Taylor Greene, etc. There is no level of stupidity this country is bounded by. They're about to elect a former football player to the senate who is so brain dead he literally can't create coherent sentences.
0 likesHow would you have worded it? I don't see how it could really have been worded any simpler
0 likesI’ve always been good at math, but I haven’t taken a math class in over 5 years. I definitely forgot about 3 4 5 thing. I also completely misinterpreted the question lol
0 likesI want to know about the country this audience comes from😂
736 likesReplies (98)
We indians are genius in mathematics. Peace for rest of the world. This was USA audience
204 likesGenerally USA people are dumb. Lol
212 likesHahahahahahah it's clear, USA.
141 likesThey all think Indians are dumb and we worship cow, but they have no idea of how dumb we think they are 😂😂🤣🤣
149 likes@Nikith TN not only they but most of the county's people think that we indians are dumb. Because the truth is he have a very small ratio of people who are smart as compared to dumb people. I agree in maths our average intellect is good but maths isn't everything. As far as all over intelligence is concerned many people in India are dumb. And we also have some of the brightest minds. What i am trying to say is india is quite extreme in this department. We either have very intelligent people or very dumb people. Quantity of average intellect is comparatively low than usual. Which gets our average intellect lower
41 likes@Orion pax maybe yeah. Our we're doing pretty well with our big ass population tho🤣
8 likes@Nikith TN ya right it becomes more and more difficult as the population increases.
7 likes@Orion pax not true. Average indian minds are smart, it's true for atleast the native ones.
7 likesHave you heard of jugaad?
@Pseudo Liberal even if we agree that an average person is smart here it doesn't make a difference. Because at the end that smartness isn't benefiting our nation as a whole is it? What's the point of being so smart if we as a nation can't use it to improve our standard of living. India is a underdeveloped country as stated by the UN. It's here in our schools that tells us the lie that we are considered as a developing country. We ourselves consider us as that. The world thinks otherwise. We literally have to have toilet advertisement on our television. How are we smart if we literally need a toilet banao aur use karo advertising in 2018.
23 likesOh another example of indians being smart in general and proving it on a global level when they get the required resources will have to be ISRO. Reaching mars in such a low budget and on the first attempt is not your everyday common incident. And that's just one of their many accomplishments that they achieved in much much lower budget than anyone can even imagine.
3 likes@Pseudo Liberal but if you actually wanna compare then the USA has far more accomplishments than we ever had. There is a reason it's a super power currently and we are not. I am not bashing our people. It's just facts nothing else. This intelligence is useless if we cannot use it to help our own people at the most basic level. All that ISRO and everything comes after. The base of a building is made first not the terrace. We still have a very high poverty rate. And illiteracy rate. Sexual discrimination. How exactly have our collective intelligence helped us in this situation? The amount of such problems in India is pathetically high. I know you don't have anything to say about it that's why u ain't answering. Because this is the truth not my personal opinion.
12 likes@Orion pax wow, you aren't the smart one afterall eh? Let me simplify it for you. money is everything(in terms of development and technology), if you can't understand that then you need to read how advanced technology india had when it was the golden bird. People risked their lives by travelling far on the ocean just to find India. Figure the reason for that yourself.
4 likesYou can't just make raw materials and money by magic for R&D. You need money, but India's money is gone with the British Empire.
Smartness can't be measured in terms of advanced tech of a nation, but yes there is indeed a way to measure that and its called competition. Wherever you are in the world, you'll mostly find the fact that indians always score higher than others, and they pass all interviews and get jobs as against these people from your advanced nations.
Again as anyone from any country is reading this, I'm not putting down any nation here(ok maybe I'm putting down Britain but that's fine with me), I'm only giving statistics for an argument.
As for crimes and sexual discrimination, go and get your facts checked. Even your superpower usa has more crimes and rapes than india, britain as well, and many other "advanced countries"
1 likeOh and don't even get me started with your Islamic countries. Women don't even have basic human rights in those nations let alone other facilities.
It has nothing to do with smartness.
@Pseudo Liberal ok so tell me this smart guy. If we indians were so smart how come we got bested by the britishers? And not only britishers but many others like french, Portuguese etc. Lol. All that smartness didn't work when fighting for our own fucking human rights. Haha. It took 190 fucking years? I don't think it's smart if you are so slow to make a formidable resistance. And for the matter of fact we didn't even win our freedom by fighting back. It was a petition for freedom by giving our men in the world war to fight for England. Now u say if i am smart or what lol. Apparently we weren't smart enough to protect our so called golden age. Haha what a fucking joke.
10 likes@Orion pax look man, I'm going to give you a strong advice. You should move to your masters that you consider superior and work for them as a slave. I'm pretty sure that's your dream because for you, you are just an interior being with zero knowledge.
2 likesNow, I'm going to say this one last time because i know your inferior mentality (or the Pakistani brain, I'm pretty sure of this theory because no indian will be as stupid as you) isn't going to digest what i speak once again.
So, invaders right? Since when invasion ke liya smartness jruri ho gayi? You're justifying enslaving a civilisation on tip of sword and guns as being smart? So if i decide to point guns on someone's family from behind, ask them to be my slave or else I'll torture them and kill them, and afterwards destroy and demolish them from both inside and out so they can't fight back, then I'll be called a smart person and that family will be dumb? Just wow, you really are a product of a brainwashed system.
Anyway, keep on going, i don't have time to waste on your nonsensical crap that has zero validity.
@Pseudo Liberal u just proved that you are a stereotype. How can u assume i am a pakistani or whatever. Pakistan ke alawa aur koi muslim country nahi hai kya world mei? See how less of a brain you have lol. I am an indian and i am proud to be one but it doesn't mean I'll ignore the truth or the facts. Unlike you or many others. Tum jaise logo ke wajah se hi India ki average intelligence kam hai lol. You are comparing a nation to a normal family. Some brain you have. Jake doctor ko dikhao. A nation is run by a group of people and is required to make good political decisions. Unlike a small family. Hum indians itne chutiye the ki bahar walo ko ghusne diye. There is no second thought about it so stop fucking arguing. And stop thinking that every muslim is a pakistani. Is that how small you think the world is? There is a big world across our border. If you don't know about it maybe your living under a fucking rock. Number of muslim countries are second largest after Cristian dominant countries. Tera smartness toh isse hi samajh aata hai ki tughe India aur Pakistan ke alawa aur kuch nahi samajh aata. Move on dude
11 likes@Orion pax there is a specific reason why I called you a Pakistani, and there's a word called "theory" written on the comment, which probably you don't know the meaning of, hence the reply.
1 likeSecondly, family and individual example, as expected your small narrow minded brain didn't understand the point of it, you can't think beyond your box. it's fine if you want to call me a stupid, I don't mind because neither you nor anyone on the internet knows who am i and what i have achieved so calling me stupid here isn't going to affect my real self anyway.
On the other hand though, i have, with examples proven your narrow minded mentality wrong, but ofcourse it's too small and oppressed to understand and digest them. Comparing an invasion to someone's intelligence, that's only as far as you can think with your intellect,
So it really is pointless to talk with a brick wall like you, don't care about your obvious response, notifications will be off.
@Pseudo Liberal dude let it be you will never understand because you don't want to. Fine you like to live in this shit it's ur choice. People are migrating outside not because they don't love India but because this country doesn't have anything to offer them for their hard work. But i think you are the kind of worm who likes to live in a gutter. Fine suit yourself. I don't think i can invest more of my time to have a talk with you cause you won't understand. Intelligence is accounted by measuring different aspects of how our brain work and it's not just limited to a single type of smartness like maths. We are behind in many fields of technology, education, standard of living we are ahead in poverty. If we were really so smart we would have formed an excellent government to handle all this stuff. Don't argue with me you can't change this fact no matter how hard you try. Living here is a different thing and like to live here id a different thing. You like it because you are a rat who likes a shit hole.
11 likesThat's elementary maths in india a 10year old would solve that with ease
7 likesAsaD Ali the first step of improving upon something is to recognize the fact that it needs improvement. Most of the people actually don't recognize. So it has to be pointed out. I was pointing it out. And as the hadith says i must either talk good or be silent. But the thing is i never said anything bad. I said the truth. There is a very very big difference between talking bad and talking the truth. Why will i talk bad about the country. I love my country because i was born on it's soil. I just addressed the people of the country. Not the country. There is a difference bro
6 likes@Orion pax did you call india a gutter?
0 likes@HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY obviously that doesn't mean i am calling the country to be a gutter. The people who should be responsible to keep the country clean aren't doing their job. That's why it is how it is right now. For what's it worth. I try my best to keep my country clean from my behalf. But most of the people don't and also the municipal corporation doesn't do as good of a job. That's what i meant. And obviously how the hell can it be countries fault? It's the fault of the people of the country
6 likes@Orion pax i would like to tell you one thing. I totally understand that india could be much better than it is at the moment, we have a high illiteracy rate and being one of the most populated nation, its a big problem that majority is illiterate. But being a citizen of this country, its my responsibility to make my country better. I was borned here, i was raised here and this country gave me everything i needed to make my life better and i am not the one who is going to run away just because this country has a lot of problems. I am going to return the favour being a valuable citizen of the country and do anything i could possibly do to make my country better. So rather than complaining, which never helps btw, lets do something to make our country better.
4 likes@HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY i never complained. Because I never started first. Someone else did and i was just stating that person why he's wrong in a certain sense. I never started myself complaining about what's going on in this country. And i understand when you say you will serve this country because it has offered you what you have right now. But that doesn't mean everyone has to. What i mean to say is it totally depends on the situation. Your situation is obviously totally different than mine. Everyone's situation is different. If you can strive here then you should do it but many people can't even have a job which they deserve in this country. I am studying engineering. And it's the bitter truth that engineers don't get nearly good of a job as they should. What the hell will i do if I don't even have job that can satisfy my needs. I obviously have to have a family of my own in the future. I want my kids to have a better life. It's not like other countries pay more. It's just that indian companies pay less. They don't value their employees as much as they should
4 likes@Orion pax what if we had a 1.5 billion population and everyone was educated and standing by your side looking for a job. You got lucky😂
1 like@Orion pax btw my situation is similar to you bro. I am from a middle class family and pursuing btech and i do have a family to take care of... Everyone does. And i know its difficult to find job.. but again complaining is not going to help. Its completely upto you if you want to move to some other country like USA because they are going to know your worth and pay you more. But please, India is not a shithole or a gutter. We are happy here and i love my country more than any other
1 like@HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY I think i was wrong about some stuff about saying that it's a gutter. That was not an appropriate way to write a comment or any conversation for that matter. I am sorry guys and I'll not do that again.
3 likes@Pseudo Liberal i am sorry because i was rude on my behalf
1 likeAsaD Ali right
1 like@Orion pax lets end this here bro. Its all good
0 likesIndians place near dead last on international competitive test scores. Our national institutions of excellence produce cheap labour for western companies, that's about all there is to it.
8 likesAs of right now, Indians are one of the most impoverished and ignorant population on the planet.
Americans are quite literally the most sophisticated, on average.
Your ignorance is the source of your misapprehension of your own grandeur and btw the golden bird nonsense is fabricated mythology by the retards who keep India the open toilet that it is.
We could have perhaps made some progress but that would require that we acknowledge just how retarded we actually are but it won't happen so the Indians with some sense left will keep running away As if the devil himself was chasing them. You ignorant lot have turned India into an economic prison for those who have more courage and the ability to reform themselves. Congratulations.
@Orion pax don't apologize to these morons, they will have already spent nearly a century in the dirt, believing themselves to be residing in a palace. So long as their mind proliferates in India the truly productive and courageous will have no recourse except running away.
3 likesHas any american responded to this comment? 😂😂😂😂
0 likes@Kaps wishes I don't think so. No one other than India doesn't even seem to care about this comment.
0 likes@Orion pax abrar khan oh boy so many wrong facts. Britishers took over India because they were stronger not because they were smarter. Before Islamic and western invasion India was the leader in wealth and knowledge. People form far away countries came to India to gain knowledge and to trade items. India never had to attack another country because we already had everything. Meanwhile Britishers were on a spree attacking America, Africa, Australia, etc. They had strong army meanwhile Indians had a pretty basic army. Any street thug can beat up bill gates but that doesn't mean he can create his own multinational company.
3 likes@Cybercop oh boy oh boy do you even know the ratio of the British invaders to the indian population? It was 1:10000. It's not even arguable that it required more than just power (guns and weapons) to keep such an overwhelming number of people under their command. Intelligence has many aspects. Not just theoretical intelligence is called intelligence. We are good at that i know. But we are way behind in political intelligence and that shows still to this day.
1 like@Cybercop if they really were all that stronger they would never have needed our help in the world war thanks to which we have our freedom. That shows that the britishers used our human resources better than ourselves
1 likeclearly usa
1 likeIt's the good old USA where educational standards died about the same time that JFK did.
2 likesIndians who are unsubscribed from t series are smart
3 likesNikith TN No one thinks you are dumb the stereotype is that Asians and Indians are good at math.
0 likesYet you're grammar sucks 😂
0 likesLearn english first.
0 likes@Fidel Salcedo yeah it sucks coz its not our native language. 😂😂 I hope you are aware of that
0 likes@Fidel Salcedo and btw it is your not you're 🤣🤣🤣
2 likesHK 2+2= 🇺🇸🖕🇺🇸 😂
0 likes@Fidel Salcedo exactly, go clean your butt first😂😂
2 likesabrar khan My boyfriend is coming back home today from being a coach for a research company in India and he said these were the dumbest people he ever saw, couldn't do the smallest task even after having it explained for 15 minutes and gave up immediately if there was a smallest obstacle like a slower internet connection.
2 likes@Lovely Angel you talkin about indians?
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY I mean some Americans are pretty good at math. My high school allows us to take AP Calculus BC, Linear Algebra and Multi Variable.
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY Most kids in Harvard are significantly smarter than kids in India.
0 likes@DK and comparing harvard and indian kids. You have not done some research about it. Give me an article and some study which validated your point. I would love to read that
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY when you call someone dumb but you can’t even spell retarded lmfaoooo
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY the irony
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY Name one Indian college that is better than Harvard or any college that is better than the 10 top colleges in the USA. In addition, most of the students in these colleges are Americans not Indians
2 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY why tf are the creators of the biggest companies in the world Americans? Huh?
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY who created apple? An American. Who created amazon? An American. Who created google? An American. Who created Facebook? An American . Who created JP Morgan? An American
0 likesyour dad it’s kind of weird that “foolish” American citizens have created the biggest companies in the world
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY And that’s why Asia is smart
0 likesYeah we Indians are really smart people for sure
0 likesAustin Hernandez nice counter. I don't have anything to say about it. But I can see your level of thinking. That's completely racist. But I ain't gonna blow a racism whistle. I have a lot of other better things to do.
0 likesLol 🤣🤣
0 likesabrar khan yet we still rule the world.
0 likes@Cantt Wala yeah and the most misoginistic too
0 likesabrar khan who told you this? Google, Facebook, YouTube all comes from USA. You guys are good for cheap labor only.
0 likesAnuj Jyothykumar you are good at cheap labor, you cant even build a car properly. USA builds Aeroplanes.
0 likesNikith TN USA is most technologically advanced country bro. India good for cheap labor only.
0 likeshossain arnab right. Usa also builds aeroplanes, India cant even build a car properly. Good for cheap labor tho.
0 likesHIMANSHU CHOUDHARY cheap labor man thats about it. Usa builds airplanes, India cant even build cars properly.
0 likesIndia is best. Talented people are thrown away. Money is preferred over skill. We lack money so we never get opportunity to show the world what we can do. Besides this there is casteism, there is an environment of showing off where everyone follows the same trend for showing we're better than our siblings, our neighbors. Our country will never develop. All the schemes, agenda that are for country development, that money goes into the pockets of the ones who are carrying the burden of development. Yes this country is good for politicians.
0 likesDesignated. Shitting. Streets.
1 likeCalifornia... Not a country, but they want to be
0 likesMERICA!!!!!!! lol
0 likes@Cantt Wala "genius in mathematics" wrong
0 likesGenius in rape epidemic
Genius in public defacation
Genius in 3rd world poverty
Check
Usa omegalul
0 likes@Nikith TN dont portrait all indians as cow worshippers you dumb fuck.
0 likesDigital RoyceTv is that proof for the rest of your population? STFU. Lol
0 likesEveryone knows USA sucks in maths
0 likesAlso remember that there is an American show called "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader"
0 likesIf Indians are so smart, why do they cheat so hard in computer science classes?
1 likeUK audience
0 likesits funny how 5 of the top ten universities reside in the dumbest country.
0 likesMake America Great Again!
0 likesHaha, I just love scrolling down the comments...oops !! Don't mind lil'ol me😝
0 likesSame lol
0 likesI thought USA people are intelligent 😂😂
0 likesProud to be Asian.
0 likesभारतीय नागरिक So thats why so many have resorted to shitting in the streets and designated dumping fields. Absolute squalor
0 likesif you know that population is the problem why don't you stop reproducing....
0 likes@Cantt Wala I also knew the answer immediately after reading the question 😂
0 likesDigital RoyceTv you think you're a genius for solving THIS problem? lol ok
0 likesmore than half of the businesses in america are run by indians, chinese, and israelis
1 likeIf indians are smarter why don't they know how a shower works
1 likeThis isn't even just an unfounded racist stereotype I have never met an indian that doesn't smell like straight up ass and BO unless they've lived in America long enough and figured out that this isn't socially acceptable.
Also indians that have established a citizenship in the United States are Americans so if you want to prove that people are india are smarter than Americans you can't use them as an example.
Dumbfuckistan
0 likesabrar khan but are the "dumb" people really dumb or just poorly educated?
0 likesThat bloke who worked out the mass of black holes was Indian. I remember him as Chandra but I think that was a shortened version of his surname. Had to battle to be taken seriously and eventually won Nobel.prize.
Lol I easily figured that one out and I’m American. Though I guess the audience isn’t too inclined with math
0 likes@Kaps wishes American is the only country to have put a man on the moon. Meanwhile Indians still can't figure out how to make houses for people.
1 likePakistan 😂😂
0 likesFor some reason, the way I read the question threw me off, not the way it was worded. I don't know the proper wording for it, but basically I was thinking something like this: some value squared, or x^2 also has 2 of the same smaller numbers that when squared, each equal the original value, or x. This is why I originally thought it was A. Dyslexia had kicked in hard for me, then I finally read the question properly and understood what it said, and understood why it was B.
75 likesReplies (7)
Exactly what I thought. The question was worded unfairly.
15 likesDude saaaaaammee
3 likesI thought 16^1/2 = 4 and 4÷2 is 2 and because 2^2 = 4 it must mean its 16 XD idk why but the even numbers looked too nice to pass up ☺
Same
0 likesskrillex544 I THOUGHT THAT TOO but i saw the comment section and i understood now lol
0 likesundead890 Yeah, the question is messed up, the sum is not a product, if you were to change sum to product then it would make more sense. Tbh thats just fucking stupid.
1 likeYep, I thought the smaller numbers were the same. But none of those would have 2 numbers like that.
0 likesIt clearly says square numbers both times.
0 likesHas no one in the audience heard of the 3-4-5 triangle (3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2)? Pythagorus? No?
721 likesReplies (37)
Yes
3 likesAh that's where I saw that trio. Pythagorean triples. I knew what the answer was without having to think about it but couldn't recall why the numbers were special.
4 likesthe Pythagorean theorem is unknown to literally everyone in the room smh
4 likesI heard of it. That's how I immediately knew the answer.
1 likei could say the same about you 45%+23%+10% its not 100%, so obviously at least some people know about that
1 likebut they get the multiplier wrong, u get the addition , so u case is more severe.
Tom nope and I don't think anyone cares
1 likeReally? Pythagoras? Wanna go for calculus to find out 3^2+4^2 to.
1 likee.mc2 There is a thing called Pythagorean triples.
2 likes3^2+4^2=5^2
A.k.a a^2+b^2=Hypotenuse^2
The numbers that fit in perfectly without any surds are fitted under Pythagorean triples.
3,4,5 and 5,12,13
+No Name there is something called twister nipples
1 like5*3"92!4?*a 93"9 iiiii88888[©[%{<[¢}£∆¶©[©=20392920292020_$
+No Name
0 likesif you´re trying to teach the pythagoras theorem, your late...only if you tried when I was 5.
Mathematics is my beach, and I also know that there´s no need for the pythagoras reciprocal in this occasion. Just basic arithmetics.
e.mc2 is that how you even use the word reciprocal? Clearly this has links to Pythagoras when numbers like 3,4,5 and 6,8,10 are frequently thrown around. Pythagoras is exactly what the guy asks: two smaller sides which are squared into a bigger number squared.
1 likeYou probably know more about maths than I do. I just became 16 and the most complicated thing I've probably done in maths is triangles within a 3d shapes using cosine rule, sin rule, and geometrical proofs. I'm at a stage where I don't learn much more and it's all refinement before I go into my next year where I'll start learning new things like calculus. I don't need to be a genius to tell you that Pythagoras theorem has links here.
if the poor guy was not able to answer such a basic question, how do you think he would know anything about pythagoras theorem, that´s my point, there was no need for the pythagoras in this situation.
0 likesp_y_t_h_a_g_o_r_a_s
e.mc2 Who the actual fuck even says "maths is my beach".
1 likeNo Name
0 likesit was a joke man... it was a joke
e.mc2 Who said there is need for Pythagoras? I'm trying to say that Pythagorean triples would make this easier and there are links. Most people learn a few sets. It's like learning the trigonometric values: sin 30 being 1/2, tan 45 being sqroot3. It's just useful when you have no calculator.
0 likese.mc2 using the word reciprocal? I don't know if that was an attempt to look clever or I don't know something. Last time I checked a reciprocal was turning a number into a fraction and flipping it.
1 likeI guess I can understand your point of view.
0 likescheck out this site for calculus: http://phyfox.altervista.org/maths/
e.mc2 weird site. I've got a book on calculus. I'm going to start reading it in July when all my exams are done. GCSEs are important so I cannot use time on learning things outside my syllabus.
0 likesYeah Man!
0 likesAbout the recyprocal word, at least in the way I learned (Europe), we have always called it recyporcal, I don’t know how you call it in USA, (if you’re from there), and it’s basically what combinations a right triangle can have.
0 likes30% had...
0 likesIt's America. It's unfair to expect them to know the Pythagoras theorem. They'll know how to make pot, though.
0 likesDoes anyone else notice that when someone uses the “ask the audience” lifeline, the audience is given no time to think?
0 likesNo Name this comment made my day
0 likesNo name tan 45 is 1, not sqrt3
0 likesI WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME
0 likesJimmy Mackinnon that’s because they answer the q’s ahead of time
0 likesAy yo I just learned that in math class just yesterday.
0 likesTom yeah
0 likesPythagoras Theorem
0 likesTom a^2 + b^2 = c^2
0 likesAmericans.
0 likesThe answer is no.
I do (I'm Portuguese).
Thats how I immediately knew the answer was 25.
0 likesRoot 25 = 5
Tom no
0 likesEarthClad There are only two explanations for your answer: first one, you're too young to know this; second one, you're part of the croud (aka you're american).
0 likesNope XD
0 likesNo. 30% of the audience got it right.
0 likesThe wording on the question is kind of confusing. I also thought it was 16, until I read a comment here and realized what the question was actually asking.
39 likesFor the people still confused, here's your explanation:
It's not asking for the square root of the square root. It's asking for the answer that has two numbers that both add up to get the answer and also have a square root. In this case, 16+9=25.
Replies (11)
omg thank you so much ahhaha I already understand lol
6 likesI thought the numbers have to be exactly the same lol
3 likes@Elirei i think a lot of people, myself included, went down that train of thought because we glossed over the keyword "sum" and were thinking about "products" and that following that we made some wrong kind of deduction
0 likesIts actually very unambiguous and to the point: "I want squareNumberAnswer = squareNumber1 + squareNumber2"
6 likesPeople apparently dont know what a square number is lmao.
@Elirei Out of curiosity, what made you think this?
1 likeWhat a crappy description made me confused
3 likesI literally also thought about the square root of the square root. Weird.
0 likes@1991Luke maybe because he assumed it was
0 likesI am not a native English speaker and even I got the question right.
2 likes@lx How when the word square root is not even mentioned? It´s like answering this question with "red".
1 like@bowlchamps37 It's because I have never heard anyone call squares as "square numbers" in my country so I interpreted it as "squared numbers" as in something like x^2. this resulted in me thinking 3^2+4^2=x^2. Looking back now, I realize the question was very simple.
0 likesThis is why we go to school. Because it literally earns you money.
337 likesReplies (12)
Nah, the incredibly flawed schooling system in America is a failure currently unless if you're talking about these fancy pieces of papers at the end which does averagely make you earn more money in a lifetime. This is more like why we should be committed to a lifetime self-education.
41 likesAgent J09
5 likesYou earn money by being BRAINWASHED
Really depends on the school.
0 likesDissenting Tirade yeah, I’m talking about old school. I don’t like the idea of getting triggered and safe spaces, which makes those types of people soft.
0 likesI didn’t know everybody would end up being on a game show but okay
0 likesget the fuck outta here nerd of schools XD , learn practical stuff has almost nothing to do with school
0 likesIt costs you money too though. A lot
0 likesAgent J09 no, we go to school because we have to.
0 likesAditya Sanjeev you forgot the 'go to school and shoot everyone' option
0 likesI want to see you after decades and count your money
0 likesThere was once a 500,000 dollar
0 likesQuestion that was about Pokemon
Only in these type of circumstances
0 likesIsn’t the 3-4-5 right triangle the first thing they teach in geometry?
22 likesReplies (3)
Not many people learn geometry
2 likesI don't think any of them studied math from whichever country they are from. Since why would anyone ask such a simple question for such a high amount.
1 like@ArkenLegend Lol yes. It's obviously America (Disclaimer: It's just a joke. Don't take it seriously)
1 likeI didn't even understand it until he got it wrong...
426 likesReplies (15)
I don't mean to insult you but you are either very young or very stupid
4 likesJim giannou me too dude i thought it was 16....like sqaure of 4 is 16 ans 4 itself is a square of 2 right? So the sum is 2+2=4 and 4×4=16....hahaha..i went too deep...i understood the question completely different....
33 likes@Nipon S boi u got me right there........
0 likesNow im feel so dumb (-_-')
How could I not understand that, u are a complete idiot, lol
0 likes@Shaziya Altaf Don't act smart. Dumbass.
2 likesBe Leo What I said was true lol, it's such a simple question. I even got the answer in like 2 seconds.
0 likesWholesome Lad it’s rly easy and I wish this was my math class but I understand where u got confused 😂
0 likesLet me guess u r American too?
0 likesWholesome Lad I see you everywhere!
0 likesSum square number
0 likes4+9 = 13
9+16 = 25
Etc
@Nipon S same
0 likes@VAS Vas чувак, ты русский?
0 likesIgor Erokhin не, я татарин
0 likes@VAS Vas Кирилицу обнаружил только после хамской риторики. "Нас" хамов сразу же видно.
0 likesIgor Erokhin говорите за себя товарищ
0 likesSomebody call Thanos...
15 likesHe was right
Replies (1)
But Thanos wasn't going to just kill the 70%; the ratio of smart to dumb would remain.
2 likesthe question is kind of badly worded because it doesn't specify that the smaller square numbers be integers. 25 is still a pretty obvious answer, though.
210 likesReplies (81)
A "square number" by definition is integer, so it doesn't need to be stated. Go back to class...
72 likesPutItAway101 maybe, but most people aren't going to be familiar with the exact definition of a square number - hence the question isn't as clear as it could be.
13 likesand i'm in class right now, thank you very much.
Ben F Here's a newsflash - the entire point of a maths question is to see if you know maths. If you fail to understand very basic maths terms like "square number" ( and half the morons on these comments even manage to misunderstand "sum" and somehow think that's the fault of the wording),. then you failed the question. The question is as clear as it needs to be for someone who has an extremely basic understanding of maths. If they fail to understand the question, they failed the question. That is the point.
45 likesPutItAway101 i literally said that i would have phrased the question slightly differently, had i been the one writing it. that is all. i'm not saying this guy's education wasn't lacking, or that he deserved to get the question right.
6 likes***** the only obvious pair i can think of is 13 and 12i.
2 likes***** no, i mean, 13^2 + (12i)^2 = 169 - 144 = 25
3 likesBen F No you didn't, what you literally said was
4 likes"the question is kind of badly worded because it doesn't specify that the smaller square numbers be integers. 25 is still a pretty obvious answer, though."
Something tells me you don't know what "literally" means any more than you know what "square number" means.
PutItAway101 literally is widely accepted as being a form of emphasis as well as defining something which is literally true. do you go around telling people it's fort not for-tay as well?
2 likesi guess i don't know what a square number is; i'll admit i wasn't aware a square number needed to be the product of an integer with itself. a quick google tells me that square numbers are non-negative, but i honestly didn't know that. i was under the impression that -16 was just as much a square number as 16. i'm pretty good at maths, but i've never needed to know the definition of a square number because so few problems that i deal with involve such simple numbers.
again, i'm not arguing that the guy didn't deserve to get the question right, i just made a passing comment that the inclusion of the word 'integer' could have made things a little bit clearer.
Ben F Unfortunately you're a moron. And what on earth are you talking about "fort" and "for-tay"??? I can only guess that you mean "forte". Why would I care how anyone pronounces a French word if they're using it in English? That is a nonsensical comparison, which you entirely made up, because you have no actual argument.. How, in your mind, does your imagined scenario about correcting variant pronunciations of a foreign word have any possible comparison to you ignorantly mis-using an English word in a way that destroys its meaning and makes you look retarded. Which you seem to be. And, once again, you seem to think it's necessary to say "integer". when anyone who knows basic maths terminology knows that a "square number" by definition can only be an integer. Dipshit, it's a maths question. You're supposed to know maths to be able to answer it. If you don't know what "Square number" means... you failed the question! Put it this way, if there's a question "what is the square root of 9", and you don't know what a square root is, you failed the question. DUH.
5 likesPutItAway101 i referenced it because you're nitpicking. loads of people use 'literally' as a way of emphasising what they're saying, just like loads of people say 'for-tay' instead of 'fort' when pronouncing forte, or how most people refer to an initialism as a type of acronym, despite them being different things. my point is that using literally to mean something that isn't, technically, literal is 100% fine because people understand what you're talking about.
1 likeas i've said, like, six times, i don't actually care about this question. i think he deserved to get it wrong. i'm also going to stop replying now because i'm bored.
retarded isn't a particularly nice word to use, by the way, and just makes you sound uneducated.
Ben F With complex numbers there is no absolute concept of smaller.
3 likeso_O what?
0 likesIs 13i smaller than 25? The question talks about the sum of smaller square numbers.
0 likes***** Of course but assuming someone doesn't know the definition of a square number and assumes it just means it's the result of any number squared.
0 likeso_O well, it is arguably smaller, yes. it has a smaller magnitude.
0 likesBen F The absolute value? Well, that would work, but it would be only one possibility out of numerous other ones (e.g. sum of real and imaginary value) and it wouldn't be a (strict) total ordering anymore because different elements can have the same absolute value (and addition and multiplication don't follow certain rules in relation to order either). Think of the complex numbers as points in e.g. the gaussian plane, there is no inherent order(ing) in there (just like BTW different distance definitions are possible).
0 likeso_O well, maybe, but when you talk about the linear 'size' of a number, you're typically talking about its absolute. i wouldn't say it's a problem that two different numbers can have the same 'size'. similarly, if i have nineteen gold bars and nineteen sticks, i have the same amount of each but they are different.
0 likesPutItAway101 hey "moron",
2 likesEver heard of domain and range? "Number" - unless specified the domain of, is defined as any finite constant quantity not subject to surreal or hyper-real properties. This includes irrational numbers.
Looks like someone needs to take a higher class - rather than instructing others to go to the ones he's taken (5th grade, I assume).
And I won't even comment on the lack of social intelligence.
Good day to you.
PutItAway101 Reported.
1 like***** Hmmm where's he gone? The coward's deleted both his comments. Must've realised how stupid he looked. What did the moron say about "reporting"? Comment was gone before I got a chance to laugh at it. Is he going to go to the Internet Police? LOL. What a pathetic excuse for a human being. EDIT - I see now that the crybaby has blocked me, and I can't see his comments while I'm logged in...
0 likes***** Do you just sit there and watch a cockroach crawl all over your apartment? I don't think so.
0 likesI took proper measures - just like anyone who knows not to struggle against inferior beings would.
***** Nope, they're not there in my view. Maybe there's some kind of crybaby mode where he's blocked me and I can't see him? LOL. EDIT - that seems to be the case. I checked the comments while not logged in to youtube, and there are 31 replies including his laughable "reported", now that I'm viewing this while logged into youtube as me, there are 28, and he's gone. Pussy mode fully engaged!
0 likes***** Jesus Christ, the idiots are still rolling in. Instead of dishonestly quoting half of what I said, why not give the whole thing : ""Square Number", by definition of the term, means a square of an INTEGER. The domain, you ignorant fucktard, is by definition always INTEGERS." Since this clown was trying to claim there was some ambiguity about the domain of Square Numbers, I pointed out that the definition of a square number is "the square of an integer". Therefore ( are you getting this, Einstein???) the domain of Square Numbers is always Integers. You, due to either dishonesty or poor reading comprehension, set up a ludicrous straw man argument as If I claimed all domains of all functions are integers!!! That is just spectacularly retarded and dishonest of you. Of course there are domains with irrational and compex numbers, you fuckwit, but none of them have anything to do with Square Numbers, beause a Square Number is a square of an integer I am not "always rude", if someone is wrong in a polite way, they'll get a polite correction from me. If they're wrong and in their unjustified arrogance they insult me when I'm the one who's right, as the previous fucktard did, and as you did, of course they're going to get the response they deserve. You morons bring it upon yourselves, not by your stupidity, but by your attitude.
6 likesdidn't expect to find a fellow homestuck in these deck of the woods
0 likes***** i'm not a homestuck. these pyjamas are just really comfortable.
1 likeBen F Sure why not
0 likesWHen this question comes upon you, the first thing you'd be thinking of won't be something crazy number like 5.6...
0 likeshow do you solve this question then?
0 likesIAmGunzNoob
0 likesa prime number can be written as the sum of two squares iff it is congruent to 1 mod 4. Any odd integer can be written as the sum of two squares iff every prime congruent to 3 mod 4 occurs to an even power (then the even integers are accounted for by dividing by two and getting that sum of squares if it exists and multiplying by 1^2+1^2 for each power of two to get another sum of two squares by a particular formula i wont write out though it is simple or by applying gaussian integers and noting that the product of two conjugates is the conjugate of the product and the product of two conjugates is the sum of two square since it is the norm in the gaussian integers)
TechnologyBudda ugh im so retarded my brain was hurting just reading that. took a while, now i understand. thank you :)
1 likePutItAway101 any number can be squared, and any number can be the sum of squared numbers..
0 likesGameDogLeader21 Of course, but we're not talking about "numbers squared", we're talking about "square numbers" which is a specific term with a specific meaning which you should have learned in school, and by definition it means a square of an integer. Which is what the question asks. DUH. I think I've explained this every time I've commented. Can none of you people read?
3 likesPutItAway101 Ok, I understand now xD. See I never went to school. Im completely self taught. So forgive me for not understanding that just because "Squared" is in a different spot it means something different.
0 likesPutItAway101 I think what you're referring to is a perfect square, a number that is a whole integer with its square root also being a whole integer as well, but it would be safe to assume on a question like this that they are talking about perfect squares
1 likeDoGmAnGuY1758 Yes, a perfect square is an alternative name for a square number. Do you have a point?
1 likeAt first glance I would agree but considering it is a tv show they can't expect people to know terms like modulus and sig num etc so yeah it isnt worded that great but neither are many of the problems at this level of maths so it is nothing out of the ordinary.
0 likeso_O 13i isnt even a real number, so u cant say its smaller or larger. its unique, like me and bill gates.
0 likesliverpooler1997 In a sense it's what I said buuut you can define an ordering that you might see fit.
0 likeso_O oh sorry. i thought you were asking if 13i is smaller than 12. one of the problems of text without voice.
0 likesTo me, the question with the answer choices somewhat imply B is the correct answer. Its sum can be written as 3^2 + 4^2 which represents a Pythagorean triplet that is also known as the 3-4-5 triangle. Before I looked at the answer choices, I predicted one of the answers would represent some kind of Pythagorean triplet. That is why B was blatantly the correct answer.
2 likes***** I read through these comments wondering when someone would mention the simple Pythagorean triples and finally the last comment I see mentions it lol. One guy tried to give a Number Theory argument earlier trying to explain the answer, I guess he wanted to sound smart
1 likeMarco Garcia Read it again and try harder to understand this time.
0 likesPutItAway101 Exuse me, but you look very silly complaining about his knowledge of the word "literally" when you're the one that used it in a wrong way in one of your previous comments.
0 likesPay close attention where you said the following:
"No you didn't, what you literally said was
"the question is kind of badly worded because it doesn't specify that the smaller square numbers be integers. 25 is still a pretty obvious answer, though." ".
The world "literally" is used when you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said, and in that comment you're using the word "literally" for something that a person exactly said, which makes you give the word "literally" the wrong use.
You fail hard.
PutItAway101 Youre a fucking moron
0 likesBen F In mathematics, we do not say 12i is "smaller" then 25. The imaginary number is not "ordered".(It was proven. I can prove it now if you want.) That is, there does not exist any relation as "bigger" or "smaller" between them.
0 likes簡昱睿 i'm not sure what i said that you're replying to.
0 likesPutItAway101 Sure! Here are the definitions
0 likesadverb
1.
in the literal or strict sense:
What does the word mean literally?
2.
in a literal manner; word for word:
to translate literally.
3.
actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
The city was literally destroyed.
4.
in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.
As you can see, none of the definitions refer in saying what something exactly said. You're a very hateful person, do you have like problems in life or something because what you just love doing is trying to make others like complete idiots showing off your "intelectual capacity", I can already tell that probably few people like you...
Sorry. I major in mathematics and saw you say that 12i is smaller than 25, but that is wrong.
0 likesThe imaginary number ( the imaginary number is a+bi where a,b are rational and the square of i is -1 ) is not ordered, that is, there does not exist any relation as "bigger" or "smaller" between them, so 12i is not smaller then 25.
1 like
ClaudiBAM BAM And which part of "word for word" are you having trouble understanding? OK we've established my use of the word is correct, now can you tell me where there's a definition that matches your claim that it means "you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said"? Oh look, there is none.
0 likesJeffrey Li Oh, you're annoyed that I'm right? What a shame for you.
0 likes簡昱睿 oh, i see! i'm 'majoring' in engineering (although i don't call it majoring bc i'm english).
0 likesand i was talking about absolutes, since that's the only real way that i could think of to compare the 'size' of two complexes in order that 12i and 13 might meet the conditions of the question. i was being very cheaty with the definition of square number, though. 3 and 4 are obviously correct.
ClaudiBAM BAM The reason you need to post it again is because YOU still haven't understood "word for word" yet, even though you've posted it twice. This video really does seems to attract idiots, you're the second person I've humiliated by pointing out that a definition they cite actually dispproves their own position. At least the other clown had the good grace to admit it...
1 likeAnd I see you've yet to offer any source for your ludicrous meaning that you entirely made up. I wonder why that is... oh wait, I remember now, it's because IT DOESN'T EXIST.
PutItAway101 Wow, you're definetly an all-in-one idiot. To start off, it's very clear that you're trying to avoid my question that says the following: "Which of those definitions that I gave you apply to your statemtent?" And you're just simply not awsnering it. I wonder why.
0 likesBTW, I hope you're smart enough to realise that you can actually prove my wrong and ACTUALLY humiliate me for real if you do awnser the question.
"Second person I've humiliated" You say, learn what humiliating is. I'm bringing up with very good comebacks so you haven't pretty much humilitated me. I think I'm actually making you feel humiliated in your soul...
Stop thinking you're the best around, it's hateful.
Forenamn Efternamn Just to be sure, are you including my case on this...?
0 likesForenamn Efternamn your examples don't make any sense. people use the word 'literally' for things which are not literal while being in full knowledge of the word's original definition. it's an example of hyberbole for additional effect and emphasis, whereas every other example you made, such as the difference between it's and its, is a result of genuine ignorance. ignorance which, by the way, is not in anyway helped by your condescending attitude.
0 likesBen F wow, I'm glad to know that there's actually somebody that knows the meaning of words that they use...
0 likesClaudiBAM BAM And for the third time, you humiliate yourself publicly by not reading or understanding the definition you've posted. You see where you definition says "Word for word"? That is what I did when I quoted what he actually said "word for word", when he was trying to pretend he said something completely different to his actual words. How many times are you going to keep getting up to be knocked down all over again? Why not go away and reconsider your life. Try and find some other argument to have where you have some possibility of winning. You have none here.
0 likesPutItAway101 You know, I really don't get why you just don't pick one of the definitions I gave to shut me up, you look like an imbecile honestly.
0 likesInsthead of looking the way that I'm telling you to make me stay quiet, no. Looks like it's a very poor way for you because you need to feel like a genius when you do comments, just please, say for once, which of those definitions I gave you apply to your point god...
Forenamn Efternamn Thanks! What I find the most hilarious about all of this, is that these morons keep saying that I think I'm some kind of genius. Uhhh, no, I never claimed to be a genius, I just claimed to have paid attention in maths claths when I was 8 or 9 years old when we learned this. If they think third grade maths is genius level, that says a lot about them. LOL. And this other assclown claims I think I'm "the best around" because I humiliated him by knowing the correct meaning of "literally". That is not considered a world-beating acheivement by anyone except a total moron.
1 likeThey can't grasp that I'm not claiming to be higher than average intelligence or education, I'm just pointing out that they are lower than average. Much lower. Which they combine with an unjustifiably arrogant beligerance. Anyone can make a mistake and get something wrong. They could just come on here and politely question "Are you sure that that is right, becuase I thought...", and they'd get a polite expanation of why it's right But no. Because they're so stupid they don't even realise they're stupid, they march in, all guns blazing, abusively arrogant from the get go, shouting how right they are. That is what makes them morons, as opposed to just being some normal person who's made a simple mistake. They choose to up their stupidity by that extra notch. Obviously they get the response they deserve.
ClaudiBAM BAM Uhh, moron, I've done that three times already. For the FOURTH TIME. Can you see where where your definition says "word for word"? That is what I was doing when I quoted the other idiot word for word. Which part of "word for word" are you having trouble understanding? Is it the "word" or the "for"? And if you don't understand the definition you posted, why did you post it?
0 likesPutItAway101 Ohhhhhh, yes, I somehow actually skipped the phrase "word for word" while looking at the meanings I posted. You were just so lazy in placing the complete meaning...
0 likesP.S I have to remind you you're actually loosing your genius image!!!!!!
ClaudiBAM BAM You're actually getting more incoherent with every post. But now that we've proved I used the word correctly, any chance of you posting a definition that justifies the meaning that you entirely made up?
2 likesIt does actually, concept of "square numbers" is specifically limited to only integers. Otherwise yeah you could say 3^2 + sqrt(7)^2 = 16
0 likesClaudiBAM BAM
3 likesum...no. PutItAway101 definitely used the word literally correctly.... i think it's you who are not understanding just how much youve proved him right....
Ben F is right in how we use the word "literally" in slang nowadays as a hyperbole (ex: that is literally the most disgusting thing on earth), youve been incorrect in how you think the word is working.
what you LITERALLY said was- and i QUOTE (because thats how you make sure what your writing is LITERALLY what the other person said--aka "word for word" as your definition states) [The world "literally" is used when you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said, and in that comment you're using the word "literally" for something that a person exactly said, which makes you give the word "literally" the wrong use.]
I'm really sorry but you are incorrect. literally is used when you are exact and absolute. "when you say what you think the person actually meant by something that person said" is indeed, an "interpretation" or "guess" or an "assumption".
For example:
"You literally just stepped in dog poop" means that, you just stepped in dog poop.
versus
Person A:"Wow this tastes bad"
Person B: "Yeah this cake tastes gross"
Person A:" No, I meant the soup"
because in this case, from what you HEARD, B ASSUMED A was talking about cake (based on what B THOUGHT A was talking about due to B's interpretation) when A was talking about soup. <--this one was a weaker example but you get the idea.
Couldn't you go by modulus of complex numbers? Cause the modulus of a complex number I a+bi I = sqrt(a²+b²)
0 likesI personally thought the question was clear.
0 likesBen F I actually do defend the correct pronunciation of fort
0 likesBen F Well handled Ben, you're a gentleman
0 likesi know i didnt understand it either
0 likesJust a quick note to point out that he got a correct answer with A. 4 ^ 2 plus 0 ^ 2 = 16.
1 like***** loosing is definitely a word, he just probably meant losing
0 likesBen F I loosed to like you Benjamin F but your spilling your wirds rong
0 likesJoe Joeseph
0 likesThen every answer is correct.
Joe Joeseph smaller
0 likesBen F Hence, it isn't quetion for 'most people.' It is a $16000 question for god sake lol
0 likesJoe Joeseph 16 is not smaller than 16; that violates the question asked.
0 likesTechnologyBudda You seem really good at math, but have you ever heard of using a period or a comma to simplify the reading of your great walls of text?
0 likes***** depends how big you write it :)
0 likesBen F Well said, egbert!
1 likeliverpooler
0 likeswhat is 13i ?
Man, this comment section is so high and mighty. If you have to prove how smart you are by showing that you know the answer to a question that everyone already knows is super easy you aren't as smart as you think
177 likesReplies (13)
A lot of people don't understand that concept though.
14 likesRed You say that like A level maths is challenging. Sure, it's harder than the exams done in the US, but, compared to some other European countries, it's almost unacceptably easy. For example, in some French high schools, they cover all of the material done in maths/further maths A level, as well as all of the real analysis taught in the first year of the maths degree at Cambridge!
5 likesWhen I did maths at Cambridge, I knew someone from Romania that had already covered the entirety of the first year, as well as bits of the second year while they were at school. (But, to be fair, he was exceptionally bright and motivated - I don't think Romanian high schools should get all the credit for that!)
The pressure to succeed is not unique to the UK system/A levels. If anything, I'd say that's one of the few things where it's tougher in the US than here in the UK. As for the timing, the European countries I mentioned cover all the maths we do in the UK (and much more) in an even shorter time frame!
1 likeI suppose the only valid point is that the jump from GCSE to A level might be greater than the equivalent jump in other countries (although I'm not sure either way on this - I don't know much about lower school education outside of the UK). Even if this is true, I'd say it's more of an issue with how easy GCSEs are, and how poorly they prepare you for more advanced study, rather than because A levels are tough.
What? you don’t have to be smart to understand this question it’s easy af
1 likeMan, fyukfy is so high and mighty. If you have to prove how superior you are by showing every other commenter their low-mindedness, you aren't as superior as you think.
2 likesfyukfy please don't kill me with your brain ball which is sticking out of your mouth.
1 likeAt least they're smarter than the 70% who got it wrong 😂
1 likeTalk to me when you’re asian :)
0 likes16 + 9= 25! Got it???
0 likesOr it's just surprising that so many people couldn't answer a simple question. Your comment is an either or fallacy where people either don't point that out or they must be insecure about their own intelligence as if there's no other option.
0 likesTheAllPowerfulChicken I understood nothing and would never have guesses it. Happy?
0 likesYea a lot of people know thats why they said A..
0 likesSo true. 👍
0 likesThe math isn't hard, it's trying to decipher what that sentence means that takes time. If the question was phrased in mathematical terms it wouldn't even be a challenge.
86 likesReplies (12)
Exactly. Choice A (16) is the PRODUCT of two smaller squares, but choice B (25) is the SUM of two smaller squares. But this guy took his time, thought it through, asked the audience, and still got it wrong.
16 likesReading comments like this explains how both audience polls were totally wrong. It's an incredibly simple question.
14 likesthe question is clear and concise, people are just bad at math and/or communication
19 likesI had my confusion on this one at first because I didn't process it properly, I thought its like the the smaller squares are sum of two numbers and since the choices are perfect square, my assuming ass thought the smaller squares are identical too, then saw the poll and was like wait 16 is wrong?(because its expected he's gonna choose 16 and he's wrong) so I actually grabbed my calculator and reached to the realization that it doesnt have to be identical and got the answer...
7 likesI don't understand what's so difficult about the wording. It's so concise and unambiguous.
9 likesIt's also full of mathematical terms so I don't get what you mean by that.
@Manuel71 It's not in mathematical terms at all; it's literally a² + b² = c² which is one of the most common equations, but not everyone who is good at math is as good at understanding english grammatical structures, even native speakers. I applaud anyone who can solve this without confusion, but understanding the difference between english semantics and math is the obvious thing to me here.
8 likes@Coalwolf I think by "math terms" you mean variables and equations. Math is not all about those things. Understanding word problems is equally as important.
4 likes@Rob W Except 16 is not the product of two smaller squares. The only squares that matter for this question are 1-7, so 1, 4 , 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. You can multiply those by each other until the cows come home, but you'll never get 16 (without using the 16 itself, which is not smaller than 16). You can get 36, though.
0 likesWhile I agree the question is clear because of the word sum, 4x4 is 16, there is no stipulation the smaller square numbers must be unique.
5 likes@Formless Well, that's only one square, used twice. 'Two smaller squares' implies different squares, but I suppose it is up to interpretation. Unlike the question in the video, lol.
1 likeIt IS phrased in mathematical terms.
1 like@Rob W Thank you for explaining this.
0 likesThis question was so easy because I watch rick and morty
20 likesReplies (1)
To be fair...
0 likesGuess what... The next upcoming video is
129 likes"A Proof that 0 = 1" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Replies (5)
yar sak what
0 likesMy (former) school's (I just completed school a few months ago) Headmistress can surely prove that 😂
1 like0 does not ever equal 1, if you had to take a test on it, it's just showing that they don't have anything to test you on and have to pretend it's true. 0 = 0 and 1 = 1.
1 likePraetorian 0!=1
1 likeGemini Girl funny
0 likesHas anyone not learned about "3,4,5" special right triangles in geometry or trig? They're literally called "pythag triples"....
21 likesThey didn't say whether the smaller numbers are real or imaginary?
40 likesFault in the question
Replies (11)
Ok, that was pretty good.....trying to find fault in your logic.....there.....is.....none......I'm not worthy....I'm not worthy! :)
0 likesThe definition of a square number is an integer whose square is another integer. So by definition it is a whole number and therefore it must be real. There's no fault in the question it was just worded really weird.
22 likesI think gaussian integers dont count for these types of things. Only real integers
2 likesImaginary numbers can’t be considered smaller. There is no order relation for imaginary numbers
10 likes@MultiSuperGuide you could compare absolute size.
0 likes@MultiSuperGuide But why can't it be 16? Since 16= 4^2 +0^2
2 likes@Chirag Kaudan Why can't it be 16? Since 16= 4^2 +0^2
1 like@Vikram Tete It says the number has to be the sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 is not smaller than 4^2, it's equal to it
8 likes@alan smithee You can’t do that. Order requires for every number to be bigger or smaller than every other number, multiple complex numbers have the same magnitude
0 likesInequalities doesnt exist in complex numbers
2 likes@Gino Mustin yes its true. i was maybe just trying acting smart . dont remember tho
1 liketricky--I thought 16 (4 squared is 16; 2 squared is 4) but they said SUM not product. I was thinking square root of 16 is 4 and sqrt of 4 is 2 So 25 because 16 is a perfect square and so is 9 and 16+9=25 which is also a perfect square (sqrt of 25 is 5). Easy to misinterpret this question
64 likesReplies (9)
Yes the question is misleading
7 likescg0825 it is the sum and not the product there isnt anythig tricky here
0 likesWe go through alot of Pythagoras theorem questions in school. And the most notable one is the 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 so I'd say this was the a very easy question.
2 likes@Epicious Why it can't be 4^2 and 4^2 they are also smaller square numbers unless it means they need to be different and then you will need two results to get 25 like your theory.
0 likesBecause all other numbers are not the thing opposite of square only 4 so my guess is you need two results which gives some number (25) and they 4^2 and 3^2 am I right?
@janjutarnji_1 I really don't understand what you're saying. It can't be 4^2 and 4^2 since it will result in 32 which isn't a square number if that's what you meant.
2 likesLei Cao that’s true
0 likesLei Cao It’s not misleading, you’re just an idiot. I already knew it from the start
0 likescan't believe we are having this discussion for a 3 grade level question
0 likesshashankjp88 that’s not grade 3, it’s grade 6
0 likesNever ask the audience a maths question in the USA 🤣🤣
60 likesReplies (6)
math*
3 likes@The Duck look at you, all full of yourself and stupid.
0 likes@The Duck mathematics*
0 likes@Unarmed Guy That is also correct, math and mathematics are both correct
0 likes@The Duck I was hoping we would make a chain , but this is fine too
2 likes@The Duck All are correct; "maths" is used as a shortened word mathematics in European English along with other English dialects in many former British colonies (Australia, New Zealand, India, etc.), while "math" is the shortened word for mathematics in North American English.
0 likes25 = 16 + 9.
2366 likesReplies (53)
Hard to believe so many people would fail this. They'll vote to decide geopolitical issues, though.
253 likesThe 10000$ is on way to your home
20 likesEinstein spotted
21 likes25= 20+5 lol
26 likes@Aman Deep Thank you very much.
3 likes16 = 8 + 8
23 likesLuis Alba Sarria ,such u r great person😱😱
3 likes30-10+5=25
7 likesIvan Ivanov , 8 is not a perfect square though.
22 likes@Manish Prajapati 16 is the square of 4 and 9 is the square of 3. So according to what the question was asking this guy is right and you're wrong. 25= 16+9.
22 likes@Anusha San i knew that . I was just kidding ..
6 likesQuick Mafs
3 likesThen the 16 =4×4 and 9=3×3 the correct answer is 16
2 likes25=16+9 and 9=3+3+3. Illuminati Confirmed
0 likes16 is the answer but your answer is correct too
2 likes1 + 69
0 likes@Ivan Ivanov √8 = 2√2, not a natural number
0 likes400IQ
0 likes@Mayukh its seem something fly over your head.
0 likesKundan Barai 1k. Not even that after tax.
0 likesPythogrian Triplet
1 likeQuick mafs
1 likeIt took literally 10 seconds to reach that answer. Must be the pressure of the atmosphere that got him.
1 likeI feel dumb😂
2 likesYou watched the video before you commented...cheater😂😂
3 likes@Machine247 No.
0 likesRight
0 likes16=16+0
3 likes16=1+(sqrt(15))^2
Wow. Most of the people who commented here probably failed highschool. I'm an engineer and the answer is 25. 25 is the sum of two perfect square numbers which are 9 and 16. The square root of 9 is 3 and 16 is to 4. 4x4=16 and 3x3=9.
0 likes1000th like
0 likes16=4+4
0 likes@Jeremiah Fyan I thought 4+4 = 8 lol
0 likesPythagoran triplets. That's why I knew the answer
0 likesThis is one of those you have to read the question properly or else, people aren't dumb they just misunderstood the question. I misunderstood the question and got the wrong answer until I reread the question and yes 25 is correct
1 likeDam I was trying to think of two of the same square numbers that added up to a square number lol
1 likeQuestion didn't said perfect square it said square
0 likesOh know i understand it
0 likesit's simple maths smh
0 likesyou get nothing wrong ever.
0 likesSeriously, how fucking hard is that.
0 likes@Tyrone Jones what's your point?
0 likesOh my god, how you do that? It's a uniqueeee answer. No one can solve this expect this guy. Loool
0 likesSmaller square numbers? Serious?
1 likeI thought smaller square numbers is 1^2=1, 2^2=4.
1+4=5;
5^2=25.
There is 3^2+4^2=5^2=25, sic!
And NO SMALLER square numbers:
3^2=9, 4^2=16.
Hi from Russia! And russian educations! LOL
Зaдoрнов пpавильнo говopил, "нy, тyпыe!"
Wow
1 likeFor Pete's sake yeah!
1 likeNever knew this and I'm graduating this year.
0 likesIvan Ivanov 8 is not a square of anything
0 likesQuick maths
1 likeWhere are you getting the 9 from?
0 likes@Lem Manalo where the fuck are you getting 9
0 likesExactly, nice and simple. Although watching people use huge explanations to explain a wrong answer is also funny.
0 likesOhhh I thought it had to be the same number, thanks for writing this!!
0 likes25 also equals 5^2 + 0^2
0 likesPeople are complaining and saying the question is phrased terrible? Whata hell!! Its very very clear here. Those numbers you see are squared numbers and one of them had two other squared numbers adding together which produce in this case 25 which is an squared number of 5..
36 likesWHY IS YOUTUBE RECOMMENDING ME THIS
1641 likesReplies (15)
because you are poor in maths
114 likesits trying to say you need to work on your maths
35 likesWHY EVERY VIDEO HAS THIS COMMENT
35 likes? WHY COMENTTERS D'NT KNEW SPAEK ENGRISH WHO
7 likesBecause it's good fucking content brotendo
5 likesSteven Wall
0 likesMaybe you watched other Millionaire clips before?
Magic!
1 likeSteven Wall I want to ask the same question .
0 likesSteven Wall learn grammar
1 liketriga learn grammar
0 likesMrOverfloater learn grammar
0 likesSteven Wall
0 likesCuz your stupid ass needs a math lesson.
unacceptable
0 likesme too
1 likethis comment made my day! hahaahah
0 likesI would say that the fact that 78% of spectators can't do maths is frightening, but most of them probably got the wrong answer by misunderstanding the question, which is even more frightening if you consider that the question is crystal clear.
351 likesReplies (22)
I mean they did go to watch a game show live so they probably weren’t too smart to start off with…
33 likesI also misunderstood the question... For some reason my brain jumped to: Which square number also has two square factors? To which the answer is 16.
75 likes@twhi the only problem I could see with that thought is the fact 36 is up there
9 likesI discounted 25 because i thought the numbers had to be the SAME for some reason. 12.5 + 12.5 is 25. And a halfa number ain't no square.
33 likes@Brissy Diggin yes
1 like@Kritter maybe the thought was "why look further, if i found the answer?"
1 likeI'm accelerated 2 grades in math and I thought 16 because 4x4 and 8+8, I misunderstood so badly lmao
6 likesI can get why they misunderstood it, I thought it was 16 too until I realized it was asking for the SUM of two square numbers, not the PRODUCT. If they were asking which number was the product of two square numbers, 16 would’ve been the correct answer. You’d be surprised how easy basic stuff like that can be to screw up lol
14 likesNo. Your assumption that we misunderstood the question is overwhelmingly flawed.
11 likesActually, even if we... Or atleast I understood the question, by having a glance at option A, instinctively my mind imagined two numbers 2^2 + 2^2 since both the numbers are same, it had me tricked into looking for a matched pair of a smaller square numbers that if added, may result in one of the given options.
The dude must've surely gone through all the possible matched pair of smaller square numbers but when he ran out of possible answer, (not to mention the huge debuff from the pressure) he resorted to going with the majority, a rather convincing move with no fathomable reason to not go with the audience.
Mans just forgot that he could take any combination of possible smaller square numbers that need not be a matching pair.
I have attempted enough silly mistakes while solving/answering math problems myself to know that it do be like that sometimes when you look at certain something and just instinctively a condition sticks to your mind that may eliminate some and even the correct answer out of all the possible set of answers you can come up with in mind or during solving a particular question.
@Shallow_Night same, I squared 4 then added 8 by itself
0 likes@Cousin._.ᗩnxiety actually perfectly said
2 likes@MR AS squaring 4 means 4x4 not 4+4. 4² is 16
2 likes@dethmaul it said sum of 2 smaller square numbers
1 like70% got it wrong, not 78%. 50 + 19 + 1 = 70..
0 likesOr just 100 - 30 = 70. Looks like they're not the only ones that can't do math.
You seem to get scared easily.
0 likes@Kritter 6 is not a perfect square
0 likes@dethmaul same, which I think is a pretty reasonable way to misread the question
0 likesI bet a 6 year old asian kid probably would dust the audience and myself included
0 likesI mean to me the question isnt crystal clear.
0 likesi admit i was thinking about it in the sense that 16 = 4 *4 which is 2+2 * 2+2 cause sometimes even if it seems like they should describe that just like being products they do describe it as sums for other questions.
My brain has always been creative with riddles though which makes me good at analytical math but also has been a problem with how applied math teachers indirectly feed in extra information about the scenerio without knowing they do so the real point you should think about is that perhaps this can actually be considered in better ways around how we teach math too
@memmener the AOL poll is the actual audience poll so get off your high horse
0 likes@Kritter and?
0 likesThere's a saying "If you don't use it, you lose it." I've been out of high school going on 20 years now and haven't had to use any of that math. I passed math with A's but it's been a while since I studied for a math test. But with a refresher, I would be back at it.
0 likesIn all fairness, I think more would have gotten this right if they actually set up the equation, rather than make it a word question.
31 likesReplies (10)
The fact that people suck at word problems in math is such an embarrassment to us as a species. Math without word problems is kind of useless, ultimately
4 likes@Alek Sherstyuk - Maybe so, but the amount of times I have had to use any sq root mathematics in the last 20 years and had to come up with an answer within 1 minute is zero. So yes, in a perfect world maybe people should study for things they will never use so they can brag to their neighbors. But I'm not sure why that's necessary.
3 likesThe numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
1 likeThe square numbers 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 ...
Which 2 of these add up to a third one?
It's not a matter of memorization, just basic number sense and logic, and as someone else mentioned, reading comprehension. It's a shame that stuff like this is severely lacking in the general population. I honestly dont think theres an excuse for anyone coming out of high school to not be able to do this given a whole minute. Bo matter what specific facts you remember from school, school is supposed to teach you how to think clearly. That's not an ideal, that should be a bare minimum. It's like, pretty clearly pathetic to not be able to answer this question, right? Like, that that much money on the line? You wouldnt agree?
@Alek Sherstyuk - I was able to do the math after they explained it. It wasn't hard. But again, I haven't had any use for this stuff in the last 20 years, so I am not too sure what the value is to getting this problem right. So, I guess it's a matter of perspective as to what each person sees as practical knowledge.
0 likesThen it would be a $1000 question, not worth $16000.
1 likeYeah well, the value of getting this right in this case is 15000 dollars, apparently, lol. Doesnt matter how many years you've stayed away from math. You gotta know 2 times 2. You gotta know 3 times 3, and 4 times 4, etc. Forgetting basic arithmetic is like forgetting basic grammar. How do you manage your money? Again, this is absolutely not a memorization problem. This is a "think for a couple of seconds, use basic arithmetic, and come up with the answer" problem. Honestly, probably more of an IQ test than a test of what your level of education is. But like, school should make us smarter. Help us be better problem solvers. Not teach us useless facts to memorize, I agree. In fact, this may be the only question on these kinds of game shows that requires absolutely no memorization. No knowledge of any useless trivia. You can figure it out on the spot with some carefulness and cleverness (which if you're applying to be a contestant on a game show, should be a given, or else you rightfully embarrass yourself).
0 likesAlso, even if you treat this problem as pure trivia and try to go for memorization, that's what the show is about right? As a piece of trivia, the 3 4 5 right triangle is like, the single most memorable thing from high school geometry. I'm sorry. If someone thinks they deserve their shot being on a game show, then this question is fair game, and messing it up is just sad
@Alek Sherstyuk - Agree. The question is definitely fair game. I think it was very reasonable. But that said, there is a reason why so many people missed it.
2 likes- Time. They pick the first answer that came to mind
- Many people don't practice math, so they lose it.
- Some I'm guessing thought the question was asking something different. Trying to decipher the equation isn't as easy as it should be when you're not in that mindset. It's part reading comprehension as well.
You can experiment with this and ask this question to 10 of your family and friends who have not used their math for at least 10 years. I think the results will be similar. Yet some of those people are probably very smart for the most part.
My mom couldn't get it. Which doesnt surprise me, since she doesnt think very mathematically/analytically. My dad teaches high school, so its trivial for him. But it's probably the biggest failure of math education in America that someone coming out of at least high school isn't actually taught how to think about or solve problems. Math is taught like it's a memorization thing, and yeah, I agree it's useless if you think about it like that. Theres plenty of reasons someone would get this wrong, but it's still sad and pathetic to see that. It just means school doesnt do its job. I mean, honestly, it's a form of illiteracy. Same as not being able to interpret legal documents, even in a basic way, or not being able to follow even moderately complex, technical instructions. These are skills adults should have. The fact that one of the most basic math questions you can ask is worth 15000 on a game show means that we basically accept, as a society, that most people, even smart people, are mathematically illiterate. My only point is that this is sad, and someone is to blame (bad teachers, bad administrators, bad policies that are hard to change, etc)
0 likes@Alek Sherstyuk - Welcome to America! Only in America you can become a football player and make 100X more than a scientist or engineer! My friend is pretty smart, but no PHD. Yet he made over $600K per year with a Bachelor's degree because he was a regional sales manager. He basically managed a sales force and also sold software. He far exceeded quota, so they gave him tons of bonuses. He did this for 4 years and retired. Only in America! Yes, America needs to become more math literate. But there's not much incetive to do so unless you have a STEM career. And most of those STEM careers do not require much math literacy.
0 likesIt´s not even a question you have to learn for. It should be as automatic as breathing or walking.
0 likesAsk the same question but with cubed numbers :^)
66 likesReplies (9)
Hehe i see what you mean
2 likesFermat intensified
8 likesActually fermat mechanics forbids this.
2 likes2 cubed plus 2 cubed equals 4 squared which would make the audience correct... But unfortunately the audience weren't smart enough to get the squared question right.
2 likesRose Juliette it has to be distinct numbers
0 likesThanks man, I didnt knew that cube numbers cannot be expressed as the sum of two smaller cube numbers, u literally introduced me to a new concept in mathematics
4 likesNice.
0 likes@Felix No. It has to be all cubed numbers.
0 likes@Katherine Pablo Good luck understanding the proof.
1 likewhen not being asian costs you 15000
2210 likesReplies (55)
True xD
13 likes@Jaylan Lee
24 likesBut it was a joke...
Lol True
3 likesyassss.
13 likesI got the answer in 3 seconds.
THE ANIMATOR i know the answer when i see the thumbnail..sometime i think how stupid world is
12 likesIt's when ignoring maths costs you 15,000
7 likes@Ansh The joke was based on the premise that only an Asian (i.e. someone very good at maths) would know the answer. It's a bad joke.
2 likesMore like not a 7th grader...
1 likeTHE ANIMATOR
0 likes$16,000 to be precise.
LOL!
0 likesYes bro
0 likesHey, looky here a racist comment joke. Classy.
3 likesNot to look down on that guy but I can pick a random Chinese 10 year old kid to pinpoint the right answer after 3 seconds
2 likes@Syah Nazmi racist.
2 likesSanjeev Meena you have be to creative. As in many schools and academies maths is just taught to get full marks but very few teach how math is done. And those teachers are the best, thankfully, I got one. And it's not just because of ignoring math, it's because of ignoring teacher.
1 likeTeelted look I am not gonna fight but thinkers, scientists and mathematicians were from all religions all right?
1 likeYou don't have to be Asian,
0 likesI learned this shit in freshman year
When i half read the question in thumbnail i knew the answer, i opened to c the video and found that audience is also nuts...
1 likeThe truth is this question is very easy
@john smith , ass roasted for being nuts ? 😭😭😂😂😂
0 likes😁😁
0 likes@Neonlaser he is not a seventh grader tho idiot
0 likesguys its literally just a stereotypical joke. stop being so offended by it. i'm asian myself and i'm not offended
1 likeTHE ANIMATOR stop being so racist not all Asians are good at math I don’t know why this kind of stereotypical thought is still going around I am an Asian and I feel kinda offended
0 likesอาทิตย์ Everyone has a line for taking jokes and if the jokes crossed that line then some people would be offended so I think it’s best for everyone to stop making this kind of jokes
0 likesI would have liked it but it has 666 sooo
0 likesLol yeah 😂😂
0 likesSo you need to be Asian to know the square root of 25?
0 likes@Earless Robotic Cat dude, now you can't do math. He went from 16000 to 10000. So he lost 15000. 😊😋
0 likesBP242
0 likesUhm... I think you can’t do math because if he had $16k and went to $10k, he lost $6k.
@Teelted
0 likeswell you don't need to be a mathematician to answer that
@cookie Dude, its a joke in the youtube comment section. You arent going to survive in the real world.
0 likesFire Boogaloo, I know,but for some people it is offensive, and I know not everybody has respect for the others. I hope most people can respect the others.What do you mean I can’t survive in the real world? What makes you think you can but I can’t? I think grammar is needed though,if you can’t spell aren’t right,then I think you can’t survive either.
0 likesI get the joke but only Americans would fuck this up
0 likes@cookie Thats not a spelling error, its a grammatical issue and its not even a real one since most people are too lazy to include apostrophes when typing. Your grammar and sentence structure are atrocious, showing that English is not your first language. I wouldn't result to grammar as an insult when you clearly haven't mastered English yet. You just loom like an idiot.
0 likesAs to the rest of your comment, grow up. You are the worlds biggest baby if you got offended by that.
True ..
0 likesFire Boogaloo excuse me,I know I haven’t mastered English yet and yes I have to say that you are right about that,but it is true that people have different limits for taking jokes and what’s even the matter when you get offended by a joke? It doesn’t matter if I’m 9 or 90,the limit will most likely not change.I hope you can think about the situation I’m in right now because I’m Asian and I dislike the joke. For example,saying “Black people head to Mars because they are behind bars.”,would offend most people as this involves racism.To be honest,the person who say jokes like this intentionally are the idiots. If you think saying stereotypical jokes won’t offend anyone then you are wrong,I have to say that you might be the idiot here because out of 7 billion people,it is impossible for me to be the only person offended. So please,think again,I’m starting to feel annoyed
0 likes@cookie Firstly, your comment about blacks is completely unrelated as you are comparing a potential compliment (all asians are smart) to an insult (blacks belong in jail). Secondly, if you are offended by someone stereotyping your race as SMART, then you're an idiot. I don't know what else to tell you. If you're offended, you must not be within the stereotype and are therefore an idiot.
0 likesThere are more important things to worry about than being called smart in a comment section. Like how about the starving children in Africa? The large abortion numbers? Donald Trump being the best candidate in a presential election? All of these are far more important and worrisome than being called smart. Don't be a baby and get over yourself.
Basically the first theorem you learn at school (in like 3rd grade).
1 like@Mecha Minion dumbass
0 likes@john smith dumbass
0 likesIt's not about being Asian, it is about being lazy and skipping Maths in school.
0 likes😂😂😂😂
0 likesAm half Asian and I don't know
0 likeswhen being an American* costs you 15000
0 likes@Swarleyyyy LOL sure
0 likesIm asian
0 likes@dungeon master r/iamverysmart
0 likesYou're early an idiot when you're posting a comment about how smart you are.
Idiot
Being American 😂
0 likesTHE ANIMATOR Lmao thankz
0 likesThat was 5th grade level what are you on about
0 likesas an Asian
0 likesim failing geometry and didn't even answer this question in time
That's called a stereotype, dumb fucker! There're plenty of Americans smarter than plenty Asians.
0 likes$7,000 lost
0 likesIt was extremely easy, though.
0 likesI'm more surprised at how dumb the audience is
0 likesUnfortunately people are not capable of doing the Simplest math problems
0 likesit's a dream question.
0 likesThe more stupidity starts when the audience starts to clap when the anchor says it's a wrong answer.....It's d same audience who made him lose d money....😂😂😂....Where does these aliens come from😫
34 likesReplies (1)
2:18 hahaa
2 likesThe question is confusing. I got the answer, but took me like 3-5min… doubt I can solve it if under the pressure like him because I need more focus to do this math.
0 likesAmerican education, ladies and gentlemen.
0 likesIt's a purposefully worded question. I did not see an answer until I thought about it a second time. It's a clever way to drill home word problems. Not sure about the people who committed to 16 though.
89 likesReplies (14)
John Mista I know! If not careful, the question can confuse you with its diction, especially under tremendous amount of pressure. I can’t blame him.
13 likesIt took me about 30 seconds but 16 was an easy choice to rule out. The higher numbers were trickier to rule out.
0 likes@Unknown Unknown Because of the way the question is phrased, you don't have to rule out the higher numbers. The rules of the game are that only one answer is correct, so you're not being asked to identify all solutions, just the first viable solution. As soon as you find an answer that works, you can stop, because logically the remaining answers must be wrong. So you test 16 and eliminate it, test 25 and discover that it satisfies the criteria, and then 25 is your answer because you already know that there can't be more than one option that works.
2 likes@Peter Brunton Yep, right on. But my original assessment of the question I wasn't thinking low to high. I simply ruled out 16 and evaluated all the numbers. Then a couple seconds later I realized go low to high.
0 likesLike, who did NOT learn an example of the Pythagorean theorem as 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2?
2 likesI picked 16 because I'm not a native english speaker and thought the question meant square roots instead of square numbers... 😓
1 like(√16 =) 4 + (√144 =) 12 = 16
They confused "sum" with "product"
1 likeBen Fisher I mean It doesn't even say roots...
1 likeThe King
0 likesI know. It's just that I never learned maths in English and most of the time when I heard the word "square" it was when I heard "square root", so I guess I just associated the words with each other. 😓
Because they don't understand the definition of SUM.
0 likesThey committed to 16 because they are americans
1 likeHonestly I also picked 16 at first. The question at first made me naturally think about the square root of the number twice. Like square root of 16 is 4 and square root of that is 2. Thhen the second part asked for the sum of that. If this question was laid out like an equation it would be way too easy, but I can see how under a time limit we just went with the first natural assumption we had in mind and went with it. Hard to explain the thought process but I can totally see why people thought of it like that.
6 likesOh my god you're all stupid
3 likesJohn Mista true. I thought they had to be the same at first before I realized it didn’t matter lmao. I got it right but it’s kinda a dumb question that’s not very specific
1 likesomething close to 80% of the audience got it wrong!! Crazy....
0 likesI'm sorry but the audience must be 1st graders
44 likesIf only this could be held in Asian, he could have answered it correctly
0 likesPeople need to understand the difference between sum and product.
0 likesYeah American public.
945 likesReplies (29)
GD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 10 seconds
3 likesdoesnt even take 10 seconds if you deal with math often
26 likesGD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01
2 likes60 sekonds is not a good time for such an easy question -_-
GD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 don't get demotivated
2 likesIntelligence has nothing to do with immediate answers.
Intelligence = More thinking
GD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 the answer is instantly obvious, being part of the most famous pythagorean triplet. I learned this in ~7th grade.
3 likesPythagorean Triplet 3:4:5 , DONE!
1 likeGD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01
1 likeThere are infinitely many triplets so do not try to memorize them all 😊.
GD SparkerBoy / Sparky_01 In Britain here there are so many students who are so good at maths, but then you get the people who are so below the standard. I kid you not someone thought 1--1 equalled 0 (and these are 13 year olds I'm talking about) while a kid in our class can easily do his A levels( not sure what the name of your exam taken at 17/18 years is called)
0 likesSourav lol ok
1 likenavid sgs
0 likesYeah especially if you already remember some triplets
Sourav Thats funny how a country who is weak in math and science is also the only nation to ever put a man on the moon, as well as having the largest GDP in the world. I’m not saying we’re perfect, but don’t generalize a country of over 400 million people and not expect me to call you out on your bullshit.
3 likesSourav yeah, that the other 65% arent indians, despite the fact that the US is a melting pot of people from other national backgrounds, making those 35% of indians part of the group you just called stupid. Got any more shit you wanna spew by belittling an entire population just to make your little wounded ego sitting atop your ivory tower feel superior?
1 likeMore like California public
0 likesSourav are you asking a question or making a statement?
0 likesSourav, Harvey's number has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with random knowledge. Intelligence is about figuring things out and being able to easily grasp new concepts, not just memorize dates and formulas. Truly intelligent people will not memorize the random information but actually figure out why that information is useful and makes sense. You seem to already know Harvy's number so tell me, what does it mean and how can you use it? I am not only asking for formulas but am also asking for why the formula's make sense.
0 likesSourav, you didn't answer my question. You were just talking about how people in India are better again.
0 likesSourav https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-NASA-employees-are-Indian. Oh yeah and theres the private space sector thats growing, with leaders like SpaceX that are drastically cutting down costs to make spaceflight efficient
1 likeSourav kid, who the hell goes "hahahaha"? When I have nothing to talk about? I'm actually stating REAL facts, not talking out of my ass like some child who can't even fact check what he's spouting, like how 35% of indians dont really work in NASA, look at hyperfoxie's link, that's why its there 😂. You're just looking more and more like a genuine idiot, because you just automatically assume im American, but in actuality i'm not 😂, typical pompous prick 😂. Sure I can tell you about trigonometry, why, do you need help with your high school non advanced math homework? 😂 How about your basic, elementary level english? You look like you could use some help with sentence structuring. 😂
1 likeSourav 😂 Learn how to structure a proper sentence first, and learn basic punctuation. 😁 An american first grader can form a better sentence than you, 😂 is english too hard for you? Is it so difficult for your small mind to grasp proper punctuation? English isn't even my first language and yet I speak it better than you. 😂 Try again, and this time, use proper english. Though I know that that is too difficult for you. 😏
1 likeSourav English is not mine either as stated previously 😂 And its not so hard, I speak Spanish, but I doubt you could make proper sentences in a secondary language like me either since you admit that you're english is weak 😂 It takes a particular brain capacity to be able to know two languages which you just proved you lack such a basic skill 😂, have you been using google translate to help you this whole time? 😂 If you can't even speak english properly, then I highly doubt you could even answer your own question 😂 you probably just looked up math problems on google while you looked up how to translate your probably just as poor hindi into english. 😂
0 likesSourav Also, you're not one to talk about changing subjects when you ignored Alex eng's question you fucking hypocrite 😂 I can answer the question, I understand all the concepts you have been stating 😂 but for me to even bother to answer your silly question, tell me, why should I even care to entertain you when I don't even care about you or who you are? 😂 Who the hell even are you for me to try to prove myself to? You're nobody 😂 you're just one out of the billion street shitting Indians on the planet, who feels a lack of individuality that you feel the desperate need to try to impress people on the internet as if we were you're alchoholic father 😂 you must REALLY be new here if you genuinelly believe that how you have been dealing with me is how things work here 😂 why dont you just stay in your shit stained country and continue working as a taxi driver before you try to come onto people from other countries 😂
0 likesSourav god damn your indian nationalism is fucking appalling. You dont have any success of your own, so you just claim any success your "group" of any Indians have made.
1 likeSourav Oh my gosh, you actually consider those two as seperate languages! 😂 How fucking brain dead are you for real? 😂 You dont put python or java under languages in a resume you fucking donkey 😂 but if you want to get that technical then I can speak 7 languages. 😂
0 likesSourav I am laughing my ass off fo real 😂 dude, your roasting game is fucking weak 😂 I think you're better at receiving shit that spewing it 😂 Like no one in america uses weak stuff like "there's more toilets in india than there are people in the U.S" like that were an insult 😂 well no shit you dolt, India has an overpopulation problem, and yet you STILL lack enough toilets for everybody, about 55 million in shortage, thats why there's so much shit in your streets 😂 I think I really must have struck a nerve to make you shake that pathetic roast 😂 the reality is there is such high rape rates in India, if nothing else you might actually not even know your own father 😂 but in any case you refuse to listen don't you? Thats why you are such a dumbass, I already told you i'm not American 😂
0 likesSourav and to respond for nightmare's comment, so India is the best contributor for all the space junk? Thanks, now I'll know which country to blame. 😂 You're point about Bill gates holds literally no value to your argument, you want to know why? I'll tell you anyway because you're probably too incompetent to know why by yourself: India DIDN'T invent microsoft, and they didn't invent it first, an american did and WITHOUT the help of India 😂 you want to know what else america did first without the help for your second world country? Invent uses for electricity like the lightbulb, create the first infrastructure for telecommunication (that means invent the telephone and the means to implement it since you probably don't understand what you are reading), invent motorvehicles, and a slew of other things, but you are probably lacking in the history department as well as english so you are most likely too ignorant with your head so far up India's shit filled ass, that India literally wouldn't be anywhere without the U.S. How about next time your fat virgin ass reaches for a world history book before you waddle over here with your ignorance? 😂
0 likesCharles Remande never rely on the u.s. public
0 likesSourav, we all know you only hate America because it's so relevant to the rest of the world and no one gives a shit about your country. I hope your country gets invaded so your country will beg for Americas help.
0 likesI'm pretty sure they are as dumb anywhere else. The world is just too stupid IMO
0 likesSourav I know you've probably had some bad experiences with Americans or something, but America is a diverse place. Calling Americans stupid is calling every other ethnicity, culture, and religion stupid, including yours.. Also, compared to 65%, 35% is not a large number. Also, you said Java and Python, which are popular programs here, I was just wondering if there are selectable language options, or does someone have to recode python but in Hindi?
0 likesThat question needs to be rephrased I'm confused to what it's asking.😅😅
0 likesReplies (1)
I find this question kind of confusing myself, and I have studied fairly advanced math courses at university, so this has almost nothing to do with being "bad at math", or whatever.
0 likesBest way is to try and eliminate the wrong answers, starting with small numbers because they require the least calculation. (A) can be eliminated with 2 calculations, namely 3^2+2^2 = 13 and 3^2+3^2=18. Then just move onto the next smallest number.
14 likesReplies (1)
Jay Skrine
0 likes😂
1 likeIf I were American, I wouldn't ask the audience for anything
41 likesReplies (4)
Uvuvwevwvewve Ossas you could ask them which celebrities are dating. That they know.
6 likesWhat an underrated comment and reply..both So true
1 likeSo true ! I was thinking that 😂
0 likes🤣
0 likesthe question was worded a bit weird but it took me a whopping 4 seconds to see how obvious the answer was lmao
0 likesReplies (4)
What's weird about the wording? Not a native english speaker here and I found it clear and precise. Genuinely asking.
0 likes@Peter how would you phrase it then?
0 likes@Peter are you serious? That's like a million times more complex.
0 likes@Peter precisely. Don't forget hypotenuse.
0 likesIt's fairly easy to get it wrong when you're up there. Lots of pressure. Just a honest mistake
44 likesReplies (3)
No... He simply didn't know math.
12 likesAnd 50 % voted A too.
You don't know that lmao. Stop trying to make yourself feel better. The audience is something else. But being up there is a different story
0 likesI was wrong too as I multiplied the numbers and not added them and then it's 16
0 likesThank you Pythagoras
0 likesbro i was over here thinking abraham lincoln-
0 likesBullshit question, who said the squares had to be integers?
64 likesReplies (21)
He didn't hear it right apparently. She said sum of two smaller square numbers.
1 likeDanilo Alamillo I'm sorry, but I don't think you understood my original comment because that wasn't relevant in any way.
33 likesThe fundamentals of mathematics say so. Its formal definition is S_n = n^2 for some n in the set Z.
20 likesZ is the set of integers. From Wolfram a square number is "An integer that is the square (i.e., second power) of another integer". Key there being the word integer
MrSupdup Okay, thank you for the clarification. It has been a while since I have encountered someone so intelligent on the internet. A bit too complex an explanation though. Would've been a lot simpler to say "By the fundamentals of mathematics, all square numbers have to be integers." XD
0 likesGengarTheTroll It's funny that the person who doesn't understand what they're talking about is trying to correct the person who obviously knows. Your question of "who said squares have to be integers?" warranted MrSupdup's explanation of the formal definition, so it actually wasn't too complex; it was what you were asking for.
1 likePizzaPyromancer What he said was extremely simple.. I'm taking AMC 10's now.. I know what he means..
1 likeIt was a bit unnecessary to mention Wolfram, mention the set of integers, Z. Overall, I thought that it was a great explanation, but there wasn't a need to go into that amount of detail..
A bit rude on your part..
GengarTheTroll here is what wikipedia says about square numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
1 likePierre Stöber Yes, it has been clarified now...
0 likesGengarTheTroll Well...ok
0 likesPierre Stöber Thanks anyways
0 likesMrSupdup Nonsense.
1 likeWhat you classify as a "formal definition" is of no relevance here. There are many "formal definitions" and Wolfram Alpha simply uses the one given by the commonsense assumption. In mathematics, a "number" is defined as any finite constant quantity not possessing surreal or hyper-real properties - that includes irrational numbers and complex numbers.
Please don't cite "fundamental mathematics" and ask others to educate themselves before arguing if you're the one lacking proper education about the topic.
Your false appeal to authority ends here.
OverLordGoldDragon
4 likesLol what? My education on the topic stems from 8 years of study and a doctorate. Citing the definition of a word isn't an appeal to authority. There would literally be no point to square numbers if it encompassed the set of real numbers. And it couldn't encompass the set of complex numbers...the square of a complex number cannot be a complex number, hence no complex numbers can be square numbers. Just think about it. i = root(-1). i^2 = (root(-1))^2 = -1. -1 is not a complex number.
But that aside, what would be the use of square numbers if they could be the squares of all reals? With the formal (and only) definition I posted above the square numbers would be: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 etc.
Under your definition the square numbers would be every single number. 2 is root(2) squared. 3 is root(3) squared. Pi is root(pi) squared. -1 is i squared. -2 is 2i squared, etc.
What would be the point of square numbers if every number is a square number. Why not just call them numbers?
MrSupdup Well, first of all, I admire you not using a single cussword in your reply (unlike 3/3 other comments I've made around here).
0 likesSo, yes it doesn't seem to make sense. And, also, be careful with "complex" - complex means a + bi (and a could = 0 - but it could also not). If you take 1 + i and square it, see what you get.
But regardless, they could be a bit more specific and replace "numbers" with "integers" - otherwise who the heck knows what might happen (just like we saw with the complex example).
And really... to be honest... who the F*@! cares?? These people have nothing better to do than to rant over a definition over a YouTube video, huh? Blah.
You're wasting your breath here. Everything has already been clarified, and there isn't a need to argue anymore.
1 likeOverLordGoldDragon
0 likesI know this is a week old but I think you should know what you get when you square 1 + i.
(1 + i)(1 + i)
=1 + 2i + i^2
=1 + 2i - 1
=2i
The product is complex, therefore i + 1 is not a square number
ServentsofSauron Yeah I was the one who said the square of a complex is real, not OverLordGoldDragon. It was a rookie assertion I made without thinking it through.
1 likeObviously there's plenty of complex numbers with complex roots.
I bet 99% of the self-proclaimed math-heads in here don't even know what i^i is.
0 likesOverLordGoldDragon e^(-pi/2)
2 likesNice try though. Not that you need such an advanced understanding of mathematics to answer a question about what a square number is...
MrSupdup hehe nice :)
0 likesOverLordGoldDragon
0 likesi^i = exp(-pi/2)
GengarTheTroll common knowledge twat! Pick the best answer. It was clearly 25.
0 likesI didn't think about the fact that is was a SQUARE number, so I said 16 because 2^4 = 16 and 2^3 + 2^3 = 16. My brain just went "square number = a number raised to the power of something", but 2^3 is a CUBIC number... :(
0 likes♫ hello darkness my old friend ♫
Replies (2)
4^4 = 4*4*4*4 ≠ 16
0 likes@M-H 12 typo ;) 2^4
0 likesi haven’t seen the full video yet but i think it’s 25 (9 + 16)
0 likesWhen not even the audience knows the answer:
189 likesTell me you're in America, without telling me you're in America
Replies (11)
⢀⣴⣿⡿⠛⠉⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠻⢿⣿⣷⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
5 likes⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⠈⢻⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣯⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⢿⣷⡄⠀
⠀⠀⣀⣤⣴⣶⣶⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣷⠀
⠀⢰⣿⡟⠋⠉⣹⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⣤⣤⣤⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⠀
⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠃⠀
⠀⣸⣿⡇⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⠛⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣧⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀
⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀
⠀⢿⣿⡆⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀
⠀⠸⣿⣧⡀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣶⣶⠶⠀⢠⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⣽⣿⡏⠁⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⢹⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣠⣴⣿⣿⠁⠀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠻⠿⠿⠿⠿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀
@FF_Rusco you messed it up.
2 likes@Trekzity sus😳😳
0 likes@FF_Rusco not really
2 likeslmao
1 likeYou’re acting like you’re a god at math lmao stfu it’s not like they said what’s 2+2
0 likes@Kim Jong-un You can't even launch a missile... gtfoh..... LMAO XD
0 likes@Ai dono *two smaller square numbers,
0 likesalthough 16=4*4, apparently it has to be smaller than 4 . . . BUTTTT I thought that was a cool answer too XD
@Ai dono oh;; so 16 = 4*4,
1 liketherefore numbers like 3*3, 2*2, 1*1, or 0*0 need to be used because it says "two smaller square numbers"
I'd still approve that answer tho lol
The people who live in my country don’t have many restrictions for guns which is pretty worrying since a lot of them shouldn’t be allowed guns
2 likesThere you go
The classic “America bad+dumb” comment to farm likes. Very clever thinking, supreme leader
1 likeThe Youtube comment section should have been the audience lol
0 likesI feel so stupid for not knowing the answer...
384 likesEither that or the question's wording confused me.
Replies (23)
It's complicated first reading it but you just go step by step each square number and then the answer is easy
32 likes1 square is 1
2 square is 4
3 square is 9
4 square is 16
9 + 16 is 25
John Morales I get it, but the question is confusing IMO.
67 likesI thought it meant 2 of the same square numbers, and I thought there were no no correct answers
89 likesJohn Morales
4 likesYea, I get it now. It's just the question was vague asf
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers." I'm not calling anyone stupid or anything but I don't get how that question is confusing.
15 likesbkmbkmbkm12 No, you're wrong. Square numbers refer to numbers that can be square rooted into integers.
12 likesbkmbkmbkm12 Do you not know what an integer is? It's a whole number with no fraction/decimal. For example, 32, 46, 12, and 15 cannot be square rooted into integers where 25 and 36 can.
13 likesbkmbkmbkm12 that's not a square number, that's a number to be squared.
1 likeTwisterLord same
0 likesJohn Morales what
0 likesTwisterLord i thought it was 16 as well because 2 squared is 4 and 4 squared is 16. I didn't understand the question.
1 likeBenjiTech I realized that afterward.
0 likesBenjiTech i'm not american, but I don't remember learning this at school — but math was by far my worst subject…wish I got it
0 likesTwisterLord The wording of the question is screwing me up. I know my square roots and arithmetic but I'm interpreting the question in two different ways.
1 likeWhilst yes the famous triangle 5^2 = 3^2 +4^2, even if you don't know that then you can work it out through guessing and checking. 2^2 = 4, 3^2 = 9. 9+4 = 13. 4^2 = 16. 16+4 =20 but 16+9 = 25 and that's an answer so go with it.
0 likes+BenjiTech - I was replying to +Casaj Ion
0 likesTwisterLord i also didnt knew the answer, because english isnt my first language and can only do math like that in german
1 likeTwisterLord It depends on how much you value your pride.
0 likesRedundant words make this question confusing to me and distracts from the meaning of it. Better wording would be:
1 like"Which of these is the sum of two small square numbers?"
Lose the the redundant words, ie "square numbers" "happens to be" "also".
Mychal Moser "lose the the redundant words"
0 likes@BenjiTech
0 likes"Can you elaborate? Because I don't see another interpretation."
Some people thought it was asking which square root (from the listed numbers) was also a number that could be gained by adding the sum of 2 numbers multiplied together, which gets the square root of the number picked. In that case, it'd be 16. I thought it was that too, because I thought there was a typo or something in there, lol. This question reminded me of a completely different problem, so I went off that memory. But I realize what it really meant, now.
TwisterLord it's the way that the question words it. Let me explain it simply. What square root number (of the multiple choices) is he the sun of two smaller square root numbers.
0 likesThe answer is A. The square root of 16 is 4, and the square root of 4 is 2, thus making 2 a square root number. 2+2 is 4.
Never mind this shit is impossible to explain simply. If you see what the answer is, you'll get it
TwisterLord The wording confused me as well.
1 likei thought i it was going to be bad based on the thumbnail, but oh my was it somehow much worse than i couldve imagined
0 likeswhy $15000 is so easy ??
1 likeThe host ,by the way, warned him ("You have other lifelines")....
194 likesSeems like he doesn't have common sense.
Replies (12)
😂😂😂
4 likeswow mean. he just asked the audience because he trusted them
14 likesUsing all your lifelines for one question isn't all that smart though
25 likes@Daisy hmmmmm......
7 likesBut if you are not sure about the answer, you should use those lifelines.
The audience poll was also not clearly on the side of Option A. There were many who supported Option B.
So, he should have used the other lifelines.
@Abhinav Singh because it was the older version im assuming that the lifelines are
2 likesAsk the audience
50:50
And phone a friend
50:50 would not help because it would still have been A & B
Phone a friend may have helped but the person could have been thinking in favor of the audience.
So unless he felt he had something to loose then in retrospect using up your lifelines is dumb.
@Daisy I think you're correct.
3 likesBy the way, in your second reply, you said he would anyway lose his money..... But I think that there would be an option to QUIT the game.
That would have atleast got him a 1,000$ more.......
Dont you think so???
@Abhinav Singh I agree but what's the fun in cutting your loses? It doesn't really make good tv.
2 likes@Daisy hmmmm..... OK
2 likes@Daisy
3 likesWell you'll get the money at least.
@Daisy The thing is- the host warned him and let him know that he has oyher lifelines. Even if he didn't use any more lifelines he should've taken the signal and understood that at least A isn't the right answer. Then may be try to figure out the answer out of the remaining 3...
0 likes@Name Less I'm not being rude when I say this but maybe you should reread the whole comment thread involving me. He didn't know where to start when trying to figure it out. Also even though A isn't the right answer it was still the most popular even adding the other two up still doesn't equal 50%. Using up all your lifelines on one question is guaranteed that you won't make it pass the next two questions.
1 likeHe should have backed down and take his winnings. Right?
0 likestook me a solid 4 minutes to solve my self lol.
0 likesReplies (1)
It took 2 minutes to understand Ques else super easy.
0 likes9+16
Shit man, if I was on that stage with all that pressure I would probably fuck it up too.
0 likesReplies (1)
Maybe, that doesn't justify more than 70% of the audience getting it wrong though.
0 likesHow can it not be A? It does not specify that the numbers must be different.
45 likesReplies (62)
How could it possibly be A?
43 likes(Serious question, how do you get to that result?)
Felix Müllner
59 likesTook me like 6 read throughs but I finally get the question now. I was thinking 4^2 is 16 and 2 + 2 is 4.
But, now I get it. Could have been worded much better honestly.
Burlap Sack
36 likesUmm, no, it was worded perfectly fine. If you don't understand how math works, that's fine, but don't blame it on English.
MrSteven334
52 likes"Don't understand how math works."
Shut the hell up, miss reading a question doesn't mean I don't understand how math, in general, works. It means I miss read the question, which is a matter of English, not fundamental mathematics.
I can easily blame it on English as the question is a bit confusing upon first reading. Even though I know you're going to say you didn't, I'm sure you and everyone else had to read it a few times over. IF the question were, clear, that wouldn't be necessary.
An easier way to word it would be something like, "Which of the following numbers is the result of adding two smaller square numbers."
It's the same question but removes redundancy. Making the question more clear.
*****
6 likesHah... you're simply wrong. Please don't assume anything. Before you call someone out on something, find the proof. When stating 'non-reality', "were" is the proper usage. Although it is worth noting that according to Merriam Webster, both can be used interchangeably but that doesn't make "was" the correct use.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfWereVsWas/gvmb/post.htm
Also, cool, you read it twice. I'd believe you if you weren't such an idiot. E.G. You called me "dude" then proceeded to make a formal (and incorrect) correction on my word use.
Skyi Cowboi
Thanks, but English is my native language and I speak it better than the vast majority of my peers.
My point, and maybe you agree, is that the question (although for all intent purposes is grammatically correct) is not worded the best it could be. The show is not about trick questions and there's extra words in the sentence that don't need to be in there. It's a redundant sentence.
By the way, your English is fine, better than most people in America at least. It's hard to tell online, so unless you have a really heavy accent, it might as well be your native language. Either way, you're not a blatant prick like Sherlock up there, so you have that going for you.
MrSteven334 You don't have to be a douche about it either. You got it, good for you, but you don't have to bring people down just because they couldn't understand it. I too was confused by the wording of the question, but I got it. Does it mean "I don't understand how math works?"
2 likesIt's really funny cause i was like the audience with that one, but for some reason I was doing 2^3 + 2^3 = 16.... why the hell I cubed 2 is out of me.... too much numberfile video....
6 likesdrfeelgud88 Wasn't being a douche. Merely stating that because he was reading it wrong is why he got the answer wrong. Not because it wasn't worded properly. It was worded fine.
0 likesSo he can feel emasculated all he wants because he didn't get it, not my fault.
Burlap Sack You are so mad... The question is fine, you just didn't get it. That's fine, maths is hard for some people.
5 likesEasy: If the numbers are the same, and add up to 16, then they are both 8, which is not square.
3 likesClassic internet argument
10 likes"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
4 likesThe key word in that question is SUM. That means you have to find two square numbers that ADD to one of the answers. (3^2) + (4^2) = 25 or 9 + 16 = 25
Jon Frego Alright.
1 likeIlluminatiMember666 About a month late, nice work. I figured it out literally a few seconds after I posted the original comment.
Michael Mischko It was formulated in a mathematical way.
1 likeBecause 8 is not a square number..?
0 likesMichael Mischko That's clear enough: 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2, but 16 (=4^2) is not smaller than 16.
7 likesOneWeirdDude idiot
1 likeAayam Sharma Sorry, let me rephrase that. 0 + 16 = 16, but 16 is not smaller than 16, and BOTH numbers have to be smaller.
8 likesThere's absolutely nothing wrong with this question. Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers".
10 likesWays people could be tricked by this question:
1) You did not know what square number meant. The square numbers are 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49 etc. They are the product of some integer by itself. E.g. 2*2=4, 3*3=9, 4*4=16
2) You didn't know what the word 'Sum' meant. Sum in maths means addition. So you add the two numbers together.
3) 'Two Smaller square numbers" - Even though 0^2 + 4^2 = 16 would seem correct, you have not understood that the question clearly states that both numbers must be smaller square number that the answer. Therefore 4^2 is invalid because it is equal to the answer and not smaller. By understanding this, we must exclude answer A and proceed with Answer B which is 3^2 + 4^2 = 25 (5^2).
4) If you said that (-4)^2 + 0^2 =16 could be accepted - this wouldn't work because the question states that the answer must be smaller than the other two SQUARE numbers. The question does not say that the square root of the square numbers must be smaller than the square root of the answer. Basically the square numbers must be smaller than 16,25,36,49. Not the square roots must be smaller than the other square roots. This means we cannot use -4 because it still makes 16 which is not smaller than Answer A.
So clearly the question couldn't have been worded any clearer. Just admit, you got confused and move on.
L.M As an engineering student who have recently a "lecture?" (not sure if the correct English word here) in clarity to speak to non technical person, I suppose you use correct instead of clear. The question increase the reading complexity by stating first a non essential property and using a more complex coordination between them. It also increase difficulty by separating the question and the propriety associated with it to the max.
1 likeBut the correctness of the question is indisputable and the difficulty not that much.
Also 0 and 1 are questionable square numbers because 0 is the multiplication "??? (something in English maybe)" where 0*x = 0 for all x who is a normal number and 1 is the multiplication neutral point (1*x = x, x number) so depending of the domain or application these property may be dominant and prevent them to be other thing.
Hugbiel What's questionable about 0 and 1? The square of 0 is 0 and the square of 1 is 1.
1 likeOneWeirdDude Thank you for starting this bitch fest.
0 likesOneWeirdDude
0 likesThe square of 0 and 1 is themselves, so they are not different from their square. It's the consequence of their property in multiplication. So the fact that they obey the rule is trivial and don't give more info. It may be or not be a problem depending of what you trying to do ultimately. Not a problem here, but caution is needed. For example you cannot tell the difference between 1^5 and 1^2.
Meiryousa it does not make a difference. no two square number added together(if they are the same) will equal 25. so, that is impossible. meaning, it has to be different number.
3 likesHugbiel Zero and one are not different from their squares, true, but that's not important. Since 0 = 0^2 and 1 = 1^2, both are square numbers.
1 likeMrLongdongification You're welcome.
0 likesHugbiel Yes i think i do understand what you are trying to say in your first part. But regardless the question was a correct question and there was not much room for ambiguity. Every question ever posed will offer ambiguity to someone out there, for instance, if i asked what colour is the sky? One would say blue, another would say light blue, another would say which planet does the question specify? etc. The answers give you a clue to what the question is asking and it is your job to use logic and reasoning to answer any question.
1 likeAs for the second part, when you say a square number that means you must use the power of 2. So 0^2 and 1^2. This is where the basic level of maths comes in. You are not required to use any other powers apart from 2. Doing so will not achieve a square number in this case.
L.M
0 likesI Agree for the most part. But what I want to display it's that's not trivial and have room for bad luck as opposed to direct stupidity. An example : the "also happens" look to me as a hook for shortcutting the question and the first answer have properties that respond to it : 16 = 4^2 = (2^2)^2 = (2+2)^2. I've done worse in exams.
As we say in tabletop RPG anyone could roll a fumble on a stress die.
For the second part I knew I nitpick. The choice of 0 and 1 as square is not a so trivial choice and may cause problem later when doing other thing, like their status in primes numbers. They may also be some philosophical nitpick like the fact that I was already I before being the square of I ( and nothing is nothing :) ) but I suppose that's mostly for laugh nowadays.
Speaking of nitpicking I'm nor sure the not so innocent bystander will get that n^4 (also a n^30 but not n^(2*i); (i=√1) ) is still a square :P
Because you dumb.
1 likeHello there, hopefully I can explain. A square number is a number that is produced by taking any integer times itself (ie 1 (1x1), 4 (2x2), 9 (3x3), 16 (4x4), etc. the question was which of the square numbers listed was the sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 is not equal to the sum of any two of 1, 4, or 9 so it is out. we can knock out 36 and 49 in a similar fashion. 25 happens to be the sum of 9 and 16, which are both square numbers, thus the answer to the question.
3 likesSource: I'm about to graduate with a B.S. in mathematics! (yay!)
But the point of the question is that all the answers are square numbers. It does not have to be worded better to make the question easier, the point of the wording is to confuse people like yourself so they get it wrong and don't win any money.
1 likeJonas0291
2 likesGo fuck yourself. This has been resolved probably 10 times in this thread. Not to mention the very day I posted this.
"I guess folks in the show is stupid."
"is stupid."
Seriously, did I tell you to go fuck yourself yet?
Burlap Sack I love how you keep checking back to see what some idiot commented.
0 likesblacket8743
0 likesI don't have a choice, I get a notification. I could ignore them, I've been doing it for the past month, but eventually I get sick of it.
Jonas0291 Danke. You haven't taught me shit.
Sai There's about 50 comments on here all explaining the very same fact that I figured out the day I posted this. I'm not defensive, I'm annoyed.
0 likesMrSteven334 Ill have to side with poor wording, I admit that you still can solve it, and pretty easily, but I thought it was (A) for the longest time, until Pythagoras got in my head, been so long since I have used that, yet yesterday I watched a video fermat's last therom.
0 likesJason Elting For me, for whatever reason, I thought it was product not sum. So I thought, 4x4 is 16 In which case it wouldn't be B and it wouldn't be C and it wouldn't be D. So I immediately wondered why it wasn't A.
0 likesAnd then of course, everyone freaked out and assumed I was incompetent of math.
People are actually idiots if they don't understand how one could make the mistake. It's a very simple mistake to make, and if you didn't make it then bully for you, but if you're actually too ignorant to consider how it might be possible for someone else to, then you're a lot fucking dumber than they are.
0 likesI'm a fairly successful adult, and I've accomplished a lot of pretty great things in my life that make me more than secure enough to know that no one with a clue could tell me I'm not smart, and I made the same mistake of thinking it was 16 at first, too, before I thought about it and realized, "oh, shit, it's 'sum,' not 'product...'
16 is the PRODUCT of two smaller square numbers ((2^2)x(2^2)). It's a VERY easy mistake to make. My mind just went immediately to cube roots. It's a difference one word that you have to think back to eighth grade math class for, but I guess that's pretty recent for a lot of these stupid little fucking kids who wanna feel smart but aren't capable of accomplishing that in the real world, so they come here.
On the other hand, I will also say that it IS weird that you keep coming back here to respond to these criticisms...
Dan Nolan I can't avoid seeing the notification. And every time I see one, I'm intrigued to see what the next idiot said. Eventually I decided to say something. It takes maybe 15 seconds of my day so who cares?
0 likesIf I honestly cared about what people were saying, I wouldn't have left the comment up. But this just gets more entertaining for me.
I already won. It's completely over. It's like you got knocked out in a fight, but you think if there were a few more rounds maybe you could turn things around.
0 likesIt's done, loser. You lost.
You don't get to pretend you're not upset about being made to look like an idiot AND keep trying to defend yourself. You're pretending you said stuff wrong on purpose AND insisting it's not actually wrong AND that you're "trolling," but ALSO you clearly genuinely care what I think of you because I've so handily defeated you and shown you how smart I am and how stupid you are. There's a difference between trolling and not being able to let something go because your feelings are hurt.
So I'm not gonna waste my time talking in circles explaining over and over again how fucking dumb you are until you figure it out. Hire a fucking tutor.
And go ahead and keep responding. I know you can't take losing, so you wanna keep dragging this on to try and dilute the pain you feel from the merciless intellectual asskicking I just put on you. Or say nothing. I win either way. I win if you respond or if you don't, because I'm smarter than you.
Which way do you wanna keep losing?
Jon Frego lol
0 likesJonas0291
0 likesYou can't possibly expect people to take your comments seriously when you use "trolling" as a crutch for your own stupidity. You weren't "trolling" anybody, you were just being a whiny fuck who wanted to prove to random people that you understood how to answer this question.
Jonas0291
1 likeNo there's a difference. A troll would pointlessly offer a reply that is inconceivably stupid.
You offered a reply that wasn't stupid, it's just been stated multiple times. If you want to claim you weren't trying to act smart and weren't using the concept of "trolling" as a crutch, then I suppose you're one of the most unoriginal trolls I've seen.
In either case, it's pathetic.
The question is so simple how people say that the answer is A ? 8 + 8??? the square root of 8 is 2.82 in that logic then the correct answer is all of them why should it be A?
0 likesHow is "Which of the following numbers is the result of adding two smaller square numbers."
2 likeseasier or even different to read than "Which of the following numbers is sum of two smaller square numbers."?
Guy who claims he has no problem with math should know that a sum is actually result of adding numbers.
This comment and this video shows why America is fucked lol
1 likepunkatux Technically knowing the meaning of the word "sum" is not an endeavor in mathematics, but rather one in vocabulary.
0 likesCSmyth89 In what ways is the country fucked?
Burlap Sack Irrelevant!
1 likeA=16
0 likes4 squared is 16.
Granted, 1 squared would be 1, but you add that to 4 and get 17.
With 25, it's 4 squared, which is 16, and 3 squared, which is 9, to make the answer.
It's understandable that he wouldn't know this, it is a difficult process.
Daniel Sharples
1 likedifficult howwwwww? :s
And there would have gone other 15.000.
0 likesBurlap Sack I completely misunderstood the question, too, and went with 16. Weird.
0 likesKevin Manley wow I'm hurt
1 likeIrrelevant
0 likesKevin Manley agreed, the point?
0 likespunkatux
1 likeIT'S OVER 9000
Burlap Sack
0 likesIts funny that when I started working in Switzerland and my spoken French was 'basic' at best, there were more communication issues with our US colleagues speaking English than the French-speaking Swiss. There were sometimes huge differences of understanding of simple sentences. I'm no slouch at maths but I misunderstood the question completely. Would be interesting to see how many UK-English speakers interpreted the question.
Aayam Sharma 9 and 16 are both square numbers that add up to 25.
0 likesAlicia Embrey i agree, i said in the pparentheses "if they are the same" meaning if there were two exact same square numbers. 9 and 16 do add to 25 but they are not same values.
0 likesMrSteven334 yes you were trying to be a douche
0 likes***** No, a douche would be insulting him because of his illiteracy. I simply stated he was wrong because of his illiteracy. See the difference?
0 likesBurlap Sack your actually so dumb, the jons tho!
0 likesI instantly knew it was 25
0 likesDo Americans not go to school? I'm not even an adult and I was screaming this whole time.
0 likesthere is nothing to misunderstand if you know what a square number is (speaking of natural numbers and squared natural numbers).
25 likeseveryone who knows, knows square numbers below 49: 36, 25, 16, 9, 4, (0)
how difficult is it to combine some?
the only explanation is that people don't know what square numbers are. it doesn't surprise me though. the average person doesn't know shit about maths and (natural) sciences. not only in america.
Replies (7)
I know I'm not a maths genius. Also I don't think it's necessary to be. I'm more vised in the educational and linguistic fields... yet basic maths is something anyone should know.
0 likesOnly 1/4 of the people knew the right answer.... That's kinda sad
2 likesThat would be an infitite number of answers because pythagorean theorem and triplets have no bounds or limits that have yet to be found, thus why its still a theorem. The question showed the 3-4-5 and if you multiply each number by two you get another triple 6-8-10 and you can keep adding constants to it and get an inifiate number with just that ratio not to mention any others.
0 likes***** I was trying to explain it in a way that wouldn't require mathematical proofs. I was basically trying to say that there is more then just a limited number of answers for "What two square numbers add together to form another square number" and using the fact that there would be an infinite number, albeit smaller than other infinites, of such combinations.
0 likesMaybe he assumed the two smaller square numbers had to be the same and 25 can't be divided by 2 whole numbers. I think that threw him off idk
0 likes***** They effectively mean the same thing, although there is a slight difference in semantics between the two. Square numbers (more specifically perfect-squares) refer to the numbers (0), 1, 4, 9, 16, etc. in their natural form. The term "squareD" number, on the other hand, refers to the root of a squared number (e.g. 9 as a squared number would be 81, which is a "square" number). In the case of 81, 9 is the squared number, and 81 is the square (of 9). With all that said though, people will generally understand either term by the context of the sentence it is used in.
0 likes***** Theorem doesn't imply that its unproven. A conjecture is something that is postulated but unproven.
0 likesThis remind me Pythagoras theorem
101 likesReplies (9)
I mean it is. It’s like a 3-4-5 triangle.
27 likesIt is called Egyptian Triangle
3 likesNice profile picture bro
0 likes@Bamberghh or pythagorean triple
6 likesGood job Vishnu! You get a sticker!
0 likesThey are Pythagorean Triplets
1 likeWhy can't it be 16? Since 16= 4^2 +0^2
0 likes@Vikram Tete cause there is a 0. 25 is a way better answer
0 likes@Vikram Tete 16 = 16 + 0 is not a sum of two smaller square numbers.
6 likesYea I don't understand that question lol
1 likeThe title of the video should have been: when not understanding the question can loose you $15000. The math is not the issue.
1 likeIt took me a minute to understand the question lol
8249 likesReplies (154)
it took me 2 secounds to answer the question and find it is 25.
412 likesUh-oh, that’s not good.
94 likesThen you really aren't a very intelligent person
125 likesI think he meant understanding what the question meant, not finding the answer. I also took sometime to understand the question first.
721 likesIt took me a minute to understand the math of other country. We call it root here instead of square
339 likesDan Tudor Math isn’t everything
80 likes@Dan Tudor no, its just that the question was poorly worded.
276 likesBtw my high school is a mathematics gymnasium (is that the correct word?)
sweiland75 wiggle wiggle wiggle...
9 likesSame here. I thought when it said the sum of 2 smaller square numbers, that it was 1 square x2
91 likesI see u everywhere!
3 likesIt took me 3 (three) seconds to understand the question AND answer it.
12 likes@Yukonii same here
0 likesflorin but you can't spell seconds correctly tho
12 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge
1 likeTo pagal ans bhi de deti
Aata wata Hai nayi khud ko Sher samagh lete hai
@Rhea Verma He/She meant that it took him/her so long to even understand the question. And also, please comment in a language others can understand. Because really tho, its you who didnt understand what he/she said.
35 likesAnusha San , mind your own business
3 likesI don't understand the language lol
2 likesI didn't even understand the question :< it's not very clear.
67 likesIts fucking triplet. Its a lol.
1 likeThis question was related to Pythagorean triplet
12 likes16
0 likes@Magnetic Manish chutiye 25 hai
0 likesMe too
0 likes@florin okay I almost gave a fuck
3 likesa ques for primary school students
0 likes@Xx Agashi xX english is my second language, if they said it in my language i would immediately understand it
17 likesAlso its a joke
I know right - or at least 30s lol! But I got it
1 likewhen situation is of 15k dollar it will surely take u hours to understand lol
9 likesTook me a second bruh, u needa brush up
0 likesThe question was worded weird that’s why
17 likesIt took a second for mee
0 likessame here as i already knew the answer
0 likesSame it took me longer to understand the question than to answer it.
11 likes@Dan Tudor I don't understand the question at all, even after more then a minute. But I'm pretty sure, you you're the "not very intelligent person" of us two :)
24 likesIt took me 3 minutes to find out and translate into my language what square numbers are. I figured out the solution in about 1 sec
9 likesDios nevan
7 likesNo americans call it square numbers too! Don't you know the difference between square numbers and roots??
Christian Schroeder
2 likesIsn't it the same? And i'm sorry cuz i live in Indonesia. And we call it akar which translate to root in English.
So i don't familiar with English education term
Dios nevan
3 likesI'am not american too, I'm from germany and I don't think so.
The square of 3 is 9
The root of 9 is 3 (The root of the square number 9 is 3)
That is a small difference I think or am I wrong?
Christian Schroeder
3 likesAh, okay. Make sense.
In here
square= Kuadrat, and Root= akar.
Neat information
Dios nevan
2 likesBy the way, sry for being a little rough in my first message. I thought you were an American who is thinking they make this math in the USA the other way round :D
Christian Schroeder
6 likesNah, it's common for people to think an english comment to be from western. Atleast you take time to explain to me. So thank you mate
Dios nevan
2 likesIn germany:
Quadrat=Kuadrat
Wurzel=Akar
Christian Schroeder
2 likesThe difference only on Q, pretty similar : D
Lol, i only understand the question when look at comments..
3 likesWant to know why Asian countries are overtaking us? I’ll guarantee you, on the Japanese version of the show the contestant and the audience would have the answer.
5 likesSame, for some reason I thought the two square numbers to be summed had to be the same numbers. So I'm only thinking about 2+2, 4+4, 9+9, 16+16, or 25+25 and none of those are correct. So easy to misinterpret the question.
13 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge
3 likesHow‘s the question poorly worded? 25, a square number, 16 and 9, two square numbers that sum up to 25. That‘s very precisely what the question is asking for.
Y u everywhere
0 likes@Anusha San
0 likesYou're not a moderator!!!!
Me too
0 likesUr an idiot
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge i dont even speak english and able to answer it less than a minute
0 likesAre you american?
0 likesAnd i understood it from the thumbnail itself...😂
0 likes@florin 2 sec only.
2 likesWhat a showoff.
Are you son of Einstein.
It took me to watch the video until the end for me to know the answer was 25
0 likesDan Tudor I bet you’re a genius with a 200 IQ
1 like@florin you just wasted 15K
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge dumb fuck
0 likesGuys not the fault of audience indeed they used more of a brain normal person would do 25 but they thought in a complex manner
0 likesI see why people picked 16 at first glance if they didn’t look at the other answers. Just need to remember to look at the other answers
0 likesI figured out that 25 was correct fairly quicly. A while later, it hit me that 16, 36 and 49 are also correct. They failed. They should have asked for natural numbers.
1 likei still don't understand the wuestion
0 likesahem AMERICAN
0 likes@florin and do you want a gold medal?
2 likes@Dan Tudor I admit it. I'm thick. You deserve a gold medal.
1 likeNice I’m not the only one
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge you‘re an idiot then.
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge sad if it took you so long!
0 likesTook me 3 seconds
0 likesfuck you're slow
0 likesIt took me 0.01 seconds to read the question and get the right answer and I never even went to school
0 likesI’m also blind and deaf
0 likesI mean, in any case you should understand the question as soon as you hear the alternatives lol
0 likes@Dan Tudor then you really are not if you base his intelligence on that
1 likeIt's worded in a way to make the question seem harder and throw off people. Identifying the answers as squared numbers has nothing to do with how to solve the problem (Yes the all the answers ARE squared numbers, but this isn't knowledge that is necessary for an answer). The question could have said, "the sum of two squared numbers equal which of the following answers?" Also, this question is more of a theory question that you were supposed taught in school and not something you're supposed to be trying to calculate in your head.
2 likes@Dan Tudor look in the mirror before looking down, you might find your reflection there.
1 like@The END me neither ahaha. Thats why i dnt understand the question at all.. ahahaha
0 likesIt took me less than a millisecond
0 likesI still don't understand the question...
0 likesDios nevan Interesting. Square and and root are different things were I'm from.
2 likesThe math isn't hard but the question is confusing for non-English speaker
2 likesIt took me 5 minutes to llook the so many possible things i can add togehter
0 likes😂😂😂😂
0 likesThe answer is obvious (16+9), but question itself is misleading and poorly worded.
2 likesTook me .25 seconds
0 likes3,4 ,5 pyhthogorus theorem so 9+16=25 answer
1 likeThat's why you r not there lol...
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge it was poorly worded
1 likeDan Tudor sorry professor Xavier
0 likesFor me it took just a few seconds
0 likesNo shit! We did a crapload of questions based on Pythagoras theorem and such easy numbers in school. Few years later, I didn't even get the question for atleast the first 70 secs.
0 likesYa normal fr dumb guys
0 likesflorin I doubt it. You would have to realize what square numbers there are when squaring up to 7 and then try adding 2 of each of them to get 1 of the 4 answers I doubt you could process all that in 2 seconds
0 likesA??
0 likesI got it within 20secs
0 likesMost Time for understanding becsuse i am Not native english and dont know some mathematical words. Lol
@florin lmao you spelt seconds wrong dumbass
1 likeDan Tudor being bad in one subject doesn’t mean you aren’t intelligent
0 likesWait, i still dont understand the question
0 likesDan Tudor fuck off ‘I don’t know a math question’ ‘you’re not very intelligent person’ yeah man maths is shit anyway
1 like@Springboob Squirepin it's really poorly worded lol. Get off your high horse
2 likesDios nevan Are you confunsed?
0 likesFrankly this is why I hate quiz shows like these. They mislead and word the question on purpose just so you would have a hard time figuring out wtf is the question even suppose to be
0 likesDon’t think too much. Jesus will help you with arithmetic.
0 likesMarc P it’s not that poorly worded. 😆. No high horse here friend. Don’t get so angry cause you can’t understand basic math 😂
0 likesThat's OK . I think that's what happened to him. He was too pressured, he should of just sat there and used his head for a minute. I can't believe the majority of people are math illiterate though that's what surprised me here.
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge you need help
0 likesIts B
0 likes@florin i had to calculate for 2 seconds
0 likes@Iced Milo most likely a typo
0 likesClimate C. Heretic you dont have to be a dick about it
0 likes@condits55 because not everyone is good at english.
0 likes@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ not funny mate
0 likesCitizen Sixty-Six because people like you exist
0 likes@Springboob Squirepin just because it's not poory worded for you,does not mean it's not for other
1 likeIt took a minute to write the answer 25 to u
0 likesFiddle what? nope, i'm Indonesian
0 likes@florin Can't spell though .
0 likesenglish is not my native language and your coment is useles anyway . Bye
0 likesand?
0 likesI thought it said a square number made by MULTIPLYING two square numbers, making me originally think it was 16.
0 likesSame 😂😂
0 likesFiddle nah, dude chill.
0 likesIt's fine, people often make mistake
16+9=25
0 likes6.9k likes lol
0 likesI took a second to get it😋
0 likes@florin English* comment* useless*
0 likes@The END I doubt you call it root in your country. Math terminology is the same worldwide. You probably mix it up.
0 likesLmao you wish
0 likes69696 subscribers with no videos challenge me too lmao
0 likesIf you haven't taken a math class in a while or been around math people I could see you not understanding the question.
0 likesMe too lmfao but I was like okay it's obvious once you understand it
0 likes@The END lol its fully said "square root" actually
0 likesThen you are a greater fool than them!!!😂😂😂
0 likesI got it in 10 seconds cause im asian HAHAHAHAHA
0 likesSame
0 likesWhy tho. I instantly figured both questions and answer.
0 likes@florin you surely would have been the millioner
0 likesNoob.
0 likes@sweiland75 No you
0 likesI used the Pythagoras Theorem tactic and it worked.
0 likes@Dan Tudor oh. How so? The question was worded weirdly. You have to reread it slowly to understand it
0 likesisn't it elementary school knowledge?
0 likes@Piterixos people can forget things they were taught in school
1 like@Anonymous Person The question wasn't worded weirdly at all. Could you tell me how the question could be incorrectly misinterpreted? It said everything just fine. "Which square number is the sum of two smaller square numbers." It was actually a pretty well worded question.
0 likesWhy?
0 likesI was thinking that the square numbers had to be the same, completely threw me off.
0 likes@florin Nobody believes you.
0 likesFor the people who says it's poorly worded. it's a quiz, you expect them to blatantly says PHYTAGORAS NUMBER, of course not, it's suppose to use your brain (which you should do sometimes :D)
0 likesWere you also in the audience??
1 likeSo what they are saying is 25 is a square number that also happened to be the sum of two small square numbers.?? How so?
0 likes@__ with that wording all answer are correct example: 4^2+0^2=16. And both are squared numbers.
0 likes@Dan Tudor Just because someone suck at math doesn't meant their dumb
0 likes@Dan Tudor i think you're dumber cuz u judge people too fast
0 likesDid the audience apologize afterwards?
0 likesCurious look on his face at 2:16. Almost as if he can't believe he's wrong, or he can't believe the audience didn't know its ass from a hole in the ground.
Burh i already knew the answer
1 likeAs soon as i saw the thumbnail
I didn't understand what the question was asking at first, after that it's pretty easy.
101 likesReplies (4)
also how do so many people get that question wrong? That's like 6th grade stuff or something.
5 likesBrandon Ledet you know the pressure make your head blank out
4 likesi think you answered your own question with the original comment.
1 likeyea the question was pretty vague
0 likesMost of the comments below are saying this question was poorly worded.
799 likesHow was this poorly worded? I thought it was a very fair question in a fairly worded manner. If you thought it was poorly worded, please give us a decently worded version.
Replies (130)
+TisfatDude0703 The only improvement is mentioned they have to be the smaller number must be integers larger than zero, but yeah it's pretty clear that's what it meant.
54 likes+TisfatDude0703 When I first saw this question I thought it meant "which one of these numbers have a squared number to this number" so lets say 2^2=4 and 4^4=16 (but backwards) while the others didnt have this kind of connection.
134 likesEnglish is not my foregin language and I tend to miss these kind of details (like 50% of the audience did).
But thats just me.
+TisfatDude0703 Any answer you choose is right, because they don't specify a kind of number.
198 likesFor instance,
A: (sqrt(15))^2 + 1^2 = 16
C: 5^2 + (sqrt(11))^2 = 36
D: (sqrt(48))^2 + 1^2 = 49
+Lethargica Stengah i like this guy
48 likes+Lethargica Stengah a square number is always known to be the square of an integer for incredibly obvious reasons
124 likescameron1004 Tell me what you think these incredibly obvious reasons are.
19 likes+Lethargica Stengah A square number (also known as a perfect square) is an integer that is the square of an integer. That is a fact. If you want to argue about that, then you are arguing with every mathematician ever.
90 likesAnd guess what? 48 is not a square number. They did specify a type of number, and that number is a square number.
Steven Miles Yes, I treated 'square' and 'number' separately, so its my bad.
43 likes+Lethargica Stengah You admitted your fault. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that. Everyone makes mistakes.
78 likesSteven Miles What the fuck? What makes you feel the need to say this?
21 likes+Lethargica Stengah Politeness, and acknowledging that you admitted you were wrong. I didn't insult you, I just acknowledged you. I even said I respected you. What's the problem?
56 likesSteven Miles The problem is that it sounds patronising.
48 likes+Lethargica Stengah If it sounds patronizing, I'm sorry. It's not supposed to.
56 likesSteven Miles You apologised, that takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.
90 likes+Lethargica Stengah No problem.
57 likes+Lethargica Stengah Now YOU are being EXTREMELY patronizing, so nobody wins.
50 likes+phantasm1004 GG no re
34 likesphantasm1004 It's fun satire.
15 likes+TisfatDude0703 Oh I see, many people probably don't know that the "sum of two numbers" means result of adding two numbers, just think of sum as singular of "sums". So 4*4 = 16 is a sum which multiplies two squares together to make 16, makes sense if you think of it that way. So they would need to rephrase it as "which of these square numbers can be got by adding together two square numbers" and then everyone would have got it right.
7 likesI think they understood it as "Can you think of a sum with two square numbers that makes a third square number", with "sum" as singular of "sums" which makes sense if you never knew or forgot that sum meant the result of adding.
I don't think this is trolling by the question setter, or, at such an early stage, deliberately trying to trip people up. They probably just never thought to try out the question on ordinary people to find out how they understood it. Because, if you have done high school maths recently, or have scientific or mathematical background, this is just how you understand the word "sum of two numbers".
It is a general thing in maths, even at research level - the first thing to do when reading a paper is to make sure you understand all the terminology being used in the paper, and also that you use the terminology the same way the author does, or else, understand the difference if they use it differently from the way you normally use it. Sometimes an author will use standard terminology but in a rather non standard way to mean something different (a bit like "operator overloading" in C++) - and that can throw you completely. Even the best mathematicians can be caught out by this reading a paper on a topic they are unfamiliar with.Indeed addition and multiplication are good examples. These symbols are used in many different ways in maths, and it is common also to have different types of addition and multiplication even in the same subject area (e.g. the "dot" and "cross" product multiplication of vectors for a simple example) so when you read a paper you need to be sure you understand addition and multiplication in the same way as the author or you will seriously misunderstand what it is about from the get go.
Steven Miles gg? Did you not realise I was making fun of you?
0 likes+Lethargica Stengah You do know what "GG no re" means, right? It means Good Game no rematch. I was implying that you just got destroyed by +phantasm1004. I was very aware that I was being made fun of, as was everyone else. Why are you trying to bait me?
33 likesSteven Miles "Destroyed"? How delusional.
0 likesLethargica Stengah What the hell are you on about?
29 likesTisfatDude0703 Why should I bother providing context for you?
0 likesLethargica Stengah I am not asking simply for your context, I am asking why you are being so ignorant and impudent. Your first statement written in your comment was incorrect and was corrected by someone who was more educated and intelligent than you about this specific topic. You have admitted your fault, and that user appreciated your action and respected you for it. However, you misinterpretated his comment as patronizing. I am baffled as to how you thought that because you cannot tell such tone in his comment that could make you jump into the automatic conclusion of him being patronizing. He even then apologized politely for the misunderstanding. However, you then posted a comment in a tone that was hypocritical and rude. Then another intelligent user came by and exemplified the situation in relation to your comment; in other words, he did destroy you. Then the initial intelligent user made a comment that was of completely common reference on the internet, but you failed to get it and ridiculed yourself even more. I repeat, what the hell are you on about?
37 likesTisfatDude0703 Well, I confront him for the fun of it. It is fun to see others defend when you show aggression. The other guy's exemplification was completely trivial; I have nothing to hide here.
3 likesSo now you join, pointlessly summarizing the conversation, telling me that Steven Miles is "more educated and intelligent" than me, that I misinterpreted his comment as patronizing.
No, I did not misinterpret it as patronizing in the sense that he meant it to be so, but I still made him aware of how it looked so that he doesn't show respect to someone in this way again. Then for the rest, I get bored and make fun of him, so what?
There is not enough information here to see who is "more educated and intelligent". He clarified the elements of the square number set, so what? This doesn't show who is smarter, so you must mean this argument I'm having for fun? Well, why couldn't a smart person do this? What is wrong with experimenting aggression with other people over the internet? It hurts nobody, everyone has the choice to stop taking part in it. You obviously showed interest in it, and that's why you joined.
Besides, what if I actually MEANT that I respected him for apologizing? In a way I actually did. He seemed very nice, I was being gentle my satire. Then he decides to say "GG no rematch", how childish.
Lethargica Stengah Your entire comment is full of contradictory and illogical statements which I personally expected. And just how was I being "aggressive"? Was I typing in caps? Did I put any exclamation marks? Is or are there any specific part/parts in my comment where I sounded aggressive? Bold letters just mean emphasis. Actually, my summary was completely correct and was not pointless due to a reason I needed to make you understand you were being an absolute jerk for no apparent reason. However, your arrogance and your self-indulgence prevents you from admitting it. How would you exactly know he was being patronizing? Like I said in my previous comment, you cannot tell such tone in his comment that could make you jump into the automatic conclusion of him being patronizing. And your next statement comes in with no sense: "Besides, what if I actually MEANT that I respected him for apologizing? In a way I actually did." Two things. What if Steven Miles actually meant that he respected you for apologizing? In a way he actually did. Secondly, that cannot be true because you ADMITTED YOURSELF that it was satire, and questioned him if he did not realize that you were making fun of him. And seriously, what the hell is "gentle satire"? Your comment was a complete sarcasm intended to be offensive. It was quite obvious because you replicated his previous comment; and phantasm1004 and I noticed it. If you read my previous comment thoroughly, I said that he was more educated and intelligent than you about this SPECIFIC TOPIC; i.e. "Square number", NOT more educated and intelligent in general. (Although I think he is.) There is enough information because you were wrong, and he corrected you providing facts. "I get bored and make fun of him, so what?" Are you kidding me? You call that a justified course of action? Evaluate your thinking, please.
25 likesTisfatDude0703 ... I was speaking of my aggression. No, you never needed to make me understand what I was doing, I perfectly understood it. You wasted your time commenting, so of course you want to believe that there was a point behind it. I've told you exactly why I was being an 'absolute jerk', there is no 'no reason' to it. I don't understand why you'd bother finding these worthless excuses to why I'm doing what I'm doing. I told you, I have nothing to hide. I've told you exactly what I'm doing, accept it.
0 likesYou don't know if he was being patronizing, that's the point. I tell him that it sounds patronizing so that he considers it next time he speaks to someone. I never concluded he was patronizing, you made up an excuse for this too, see?
You can respect someone and still make fun of them, I do this with people all the time. Don't lie to yourself that this doesn't make sense; it's perfectly fine.
I never apologized to Steven Miles, I admitted what I misunderstood. If you are seriously asking me "what if" he respected me, then the result would be exactly the same as it is now. "That cannot be true because you ADMITTED YOURSELF" what if I am lying? You cannot prove to me that I am not, nor can you prove that I am. But let's suppose I wasn't lying, for the the fun of it: Well, I have bad news for you, none of you could have possibly known, because you determine the future of this.
By 'gentle satire', I mean 'banter', but I'd rather say something else so I use this. Ahah, "intended to be offensive". Most of your points so far have been completely subjective, I never gave a fuck about offending him. You noticed the sarcasm? Good, that was the whole point. Sadly, that sarcasm was intended for Steven. Too bad he didn't understand it until the other guy somewhat pointed it out (I was not being 'extremely patronizing').
Ah, more educated and intelligent about this specific topic? Fair enough. However, I'd still argue against this, I believe "more knowledgeable" is what you were meant to say. It doesn't make much sense saying it otherwise. I would never think that I am 'more intelligent' than somebody about cardinality of sets, for instance.
"There is enough information because you were wrong, and he corrected you providing facts." This doesn't imply that he is smarter, it implies he is more knowledgeable about the particular topic. Think of this implication in a more general perspective and you'll see that it is dumb to think this.
Huh? Of course that is a justified course of action. There is nothing wrong with this. I don't need any meaning to do it. You should ask yourself what you've asked me, "what the hell you are on about?". You have made so many excuses over nothing for the sake of trying to show me wrong, the question will do you good.
+Lethargica Stengah Just so you know, my goal was never to be patronizing. I even apologized for the fact that it "sounds patronising", even though I didn't think it did. I am now saying it again: I am sorry for coming across as patronizing. I have already said this, and am honestly starting to wonder if you are just a troll with a large vocabulary. If that is the case, then please inform me so that I can stop responding to your comments with civility. This is my second sincere apology. I do not believe that I am wrong, but common courtesy calls for me to apologize, and I will do so. I will not apologize again.
18 likesTHE ABOVE COMMENT IS IN NO WAY PATRONIZING, SARCASTIC, OR MEANT AS A VERBAL ASSAULT ON ANY ONE PERSON. DO NOT MISINTERPRET MY COMMENT AS SUCH.
+TisfatDude0703 Thank you. I'm glad that you understand what I'm saying.
9 likes***** 5, 6, 7 are not square numbers. Square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16. 25. 36. 49. 64, etc. They are an integer that are the square of an integer. 25 is the only answer because the two smaller square numbers are 9 and 16. 9 + 16 = 25. The answer cannot be 16 because the square numbers smaller than 16 are 1, 4, 9. You cannot make 16 using those numbers. 36 cannot be the answer because the square numbers smaller than 36 are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, and you cannot make 36 using those numbers. So forth.
8 likesSteven Miles You speak to me as if this "GG no re", "you just got destroyed!" thing never happened. Notice how you straight away assumed that I was being completely sarcastic once phantasm1004 replied? When I made that reply, I thought to myself, "wouldn't it be fun to show him respect for apologizing whilst making joking with him?". You chose to interpret it the wrong way, at least I questioned what you said to me so I could understand you. You never bothered. There's no point accepting your apology without acknowledging this, sorry.
1 like+Lethargica Stengah I didn't assume you were being sarcastic, I know you were. Copying someone else's comment verbatim is obviously an attempt at being insulting. And you NEVER questioned me or made an attempt to understand what I was saying. You asked WHY, but never WHAT. You came in flinging profanity at me from the start. Don't even try to say that you tried to understand what was being said; you never even tried. Once you started cursing and accusing me of being patronizing I lost some of the respect I had for you, but then when I apologized and you replied with sarcasm I lost ALL respect for you. When I said GG no re, there was no reason for me to be polite. You speak as if you never used profanity at me or tried to mock me before I said GG no re. I don't see how being a jerk to people is "fun satire".
19 likesSteven Miles Don't lie to yourself, you never knew I was being sarcastic. It took someone to point it out for you to see. "You asked WHY, but never WHAT." Why lie? This is exact quote from me "What makes you feel the need to say this?" Well, I did try to understand what you said. Your comment did sound patronizing to me, I felt insulted, so I question it to see your explanation. Look, it is your problem for finding "fuck" offensive, your problem for finding sarcasm offensive. I never cared about your respect, and even if I did, I'd still make fun of you. This is a fun way I interact with people. Some find it fun, some don't, it is your choice to take it seriously or not. Now, if for some reason you still feel the need to argue with me and +1 each other to show your wonderful support, go ahead.
0 likes+Lethargica Stengah "What makes you feel the need to say this?" literally is asking me why. Do you not understand English? That's asking me why I said it, not what it means. You never asked me what it meant, just why I said it. You asked me what makes me say what I said not what exactly my comment meant.
16 likesAnd OF COURSE I know you were sarcastic. You copied my comment WORD FOR WORD. That's why I said "GG no re."
In the real world, no one likes to be made fun of. It is insulting and rude. You need a reality check, and another English class. I just made fun of you with that statement, and I guarantee that you did not enjoy that.
Steven Miles Look at yourself creating pointless excuses to show that I am in the wrong, you're worse than a woman. You actually tried to make it seem as if I never asked "what"? Do you not realise that "what" is associated with "why"? And you tell ME to take English lessons? Asking why you said it lead to what you explaining what you meant. After this I understood exactly what you meant. The excuses you try to deduce off of your own bullshit is fun to watch.
0 likesYou know I was being sarcastic? Good, that was the point of it. Take it like a man and move on. Besides, it did take a person to point it out in order for you to see it.
I don't know what kind of feminine dominated world you live in, I know plenty of people who I can joke and insult with a friendly manner. Imitating your comment is nothing to whinge about. It is good you try to make fun of me also. Do you wish to continue circle jerking +1's with TisfatDude0703 and argue like a woman over your femininity? I can play along a little longer. :>
+Lethargica Stengah Wow, you are even dumber than I thought you were. When I pointed out and fully explained that "What makes you feel the need to say this?" means that you are asking why, (and Why and What are indeed associated, but are not interchangeable. What a moronic excuse) you panicked, realizing that I had the facts on my side, and devolved into calling me "worse than a woman."
18 likesWhat an insulting thing to say! Worse than a woman? OH NO! I'M SO INSULTED! Because we all know that women are horrible detestable things, right? (This is sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.)
And no, it didn't take anyone pointing out your sarcasm for me to know that you were being sarcastic. I already explained this, but seeing as you have a very feeble grasp of the English language I can understand the difficulty you may be having.
So now we all learn that not only are you poorly educated in math AND English, but you are a woman hater as well! It's probably because they hired a woman over you because she actually understands middle school math and passed her high school English class.
And yes, insulting is okay among friends. I constantly insult my colleagues, and they do likewise. But they are my friends, and we know each other. If you go to a public place and insult someone you don't know, you'll get beat down. I am not one of your friends. I do not know you, and you do not know me. Insulting random strangers is never an acceptable thing to do.
+Lethargica Stengah Lol this is just hilarious. Can you get any more stupid? No one assumed that you were being sarcastic. It was beyond obvious that you were being sarcastic. You literally replicated his comment. It's common sense. Also, if you're still stubborn to think that we assumed, then phantasm1004 surely didn't. He knew straight away, because it was obvious. So even if you think that we were assuming, there was another individual who knew.
12 likesWhat does it mean by "show him respect whilst joking with him?" That's not showing respect at all. Look at your comment again. You were obviously making fun of him, in other words, offending him. Don't even deny it, because you were the one who said you were making fun of him. Therefore, his, or phantasm's, or my interpretation of your comment was correct. You didn't question him what he said to you. "What the fuck? What makes you feel the need to say this?" You straight away concluded that he was being patronizing, and that is why you said "What makes you feel the need to say this?"
From most of my previous statements, there was no need to question you on what your comment sounded like. It's common sense. We, meaning three individuals, can clearly notice it was sarcastic. "Don't lie to yourself?" You already lied to yourself. Before you said "Besides, what if I actually MEANT that I respected him for apologizing? In a way I actually did." And now you admit that you were being sarcastic. "Why lie?" Ask that question to yourself now.
Your next statement was just too mind-numbingly idiotic. Are you fucking kidding me? It's his fucking problem for finding the word "fuck" offensive? And it's his fucking problem for finding sarcasm offensive? Then tell me this, you fucking twat. Why in the fuck did you say you felt insulted of his apparent sarcasm? You're so ridiculously confident infront of your keyboard. Now try to go up to a stranger in real life and talk to him in a serious tone using the word "fuck", and see if he's completely normal with it. And then, tell him that it's his fucking problem that he finds it offensive. Does the way I'm fucking speaking right now sound right to you? I'm obviously not being fucking offensive, it's your fucking fault if you think I am. And that was a mixture of an example of your delusional thoughts and sarcasm.
"I never cared about your respect, and even if I did, I'd still make fun of you. This is a fun way I interact with people." Is this how you make friends? Melancholic. Good luck having a social life.
In your next comment, it shows that you are a misogynist. Why are you downgrading women all of a sudden? It's not even a minor sexist joke, you're literally diminishing all of the female individuals and saying that Steven Miles is worse than them.
After he figured out your sarcasm (which he did in the first sight of your comment), you told him that he should take it like a man and move on. Then tell me this, why haven't you done that? Instead you question him like a posh infant using profanity of why he just said that.
How are women exactly related to this? Women and men can both take jokes, but Steven was a complete stranger to you, and you now come up with a bullshit excuse that your comment consisted of "friendly manner". Where in any of your comment did you show friendly manner?
Lol fuck off while you can now.
Steven Miles I was essentially asking "what" AND "why". I asked "what made you feel the need to say this?" in order to find out WHAT made you feel the need to say it. It ALSO asks "why did you say this?". "Why" is to ask "what is the reason for this?", see? But it doesn't matter, you want to believe otherwise just so "you never tried to understand!" feels valid to you. YOU are the one panicking over this, so of course you say "You don't understand English!!! You need English classes!!!"
0 likesYes, you argue worse than a woman; you try so hard to dismiss what I say by making completely arbitrary reasons to attack me with. For instance, you now believe I hate women because I implied their arguments are worthless. This is a typical reaction that is always fun to watch. :>
You tell me that I'm poorly educated in math due to the misunderstanding of a set. You think you understand mathematics better than me over this? How closed minded of you. Nobody gives a fuck about middle school math once you reach university level.
We aren't in a public place face to face, we can insult one another as much as we please. Experimenting socially on here is always fun to do during spare time. People love to make a huge fuss.
TisfatDude0703 It is interesting how you misinterpret my words (perhaps intentionally) just so you can waste your time writing paragraphs to attack me with. I've already explained to you that my sarcasm was intended as "banter". Why make such a big deal out of it? My motivation wasn't to purely insult him. You choose to find it completely offensive, not me.
0 likes" You straight away concluded that he was being patronizing" This is a wonderful example of misinterpreting words. I never "straight away concluded" he was being patronizing. I reacted to how it sounds to me, so I ask him why he says this. Nothing more, nothing less.
You have a problem considering the timing of this conversation. Steven Miles initial reaction to my sarcasm was just a +1 with "no problem". He didn't see it until the other guy pointed it out. This is what I am referring to, not after. Telling me "but you admitted it!" makes no difference in this case.
Yes, it is his problem for finding "fuck" offensive. It was confusing, you couldn't tell if he was legitimately being nice or patronizing. A "wtf?" reaction is perfectly fine here. If I had this conversation with him face to face, I'd still react with "wtf?", it's no big deal.
"Is this how you make friends?" No, I'm not trying to make friends here.
Yes, I am a sexist, so what? I pay attention to stats, I observe the difference between men and women, I am not blind for the sake of holding a politically correct mindset. However, I do know that I exaggerate by saying "you argue worse than a woman", but it's nice to relate his argument style with them.
You ask me to take his patronizing sounding comment "like a man"? Well, this is exactly what I did, I confronted him and clarified what he meant.
Where did I show a friendly manner? In my sarcastic comment.
TisfatDude0703 How the fuck didn't I know? Well, it's simple; I had forgotten. It's no problem. The basic mathematical operators in mathematics were not the issue here, if you didn't see. The problem was that I didn't see 'square numbers' as having to be squared integers since I treated both terms separately, not as name of a set.
0 likes+Lethargica Stengah Arguing with you isn't worth the effort. I know I'm right. No matter what I say, you will argue with it. You will probably try to argue with this statement(but now that I've said that, you might not argue just to spite me). I know that you are just trying to make me mad and illicit angry responses from me. Any logical person who reads this chain can see that. No one here takes you seriously anymore. You are just a common breed of troll that knows how to read the dictionary. There is no point in arguing with you, so, I'm done. The only thing that makes a troll angry is not responding to them. I've fed the troll enough. You probably won't have to buy food for weeks from all the feeding I've given you, so I'm just going to back out. Enjoy the meal.
9 likes+TisfatDude0703 Thanks for actually understanding the basic concept that insulting people you don't know is socially unacceptable-a concept that many people think that because they are on the internet, it does not apply anymore. But whether it's face to face or through the internet, respect should be present. It's just common sense.
+Lethargica Stengah I hope to god you're a Meshuggah fan..
0 likesDrew spark-whitworth Ahah why?
0 likesSteven Miles Of course arguing with me wasn't worth the effort, that's the fun of it. Don't misunderstand my intentions though, it was not to make anybody mad.
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 english isnt acutally my mother tungue and I would have solven it right.
0 likes+Lethargica Stengah You cracked me up big time. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.
5 likesZheng Lai You took notice of my real intention of cracking you up. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.
2 likes+dispatch1347 Square numbers are non-negative by definition. Otherwise, the negative numbers would be a product of two imaginary numbers, containing i.
10 likes+Lethargica Stengah Wow, I haven't seen demency on a level as serious as yours for quite a long while now. Thank you, indeed you made us all have a good laugh, which you insist was your objective, even if we are laughing at you, so gratz.
5 likesGG no re
+Lethargica Stengah that makes sense but it goes against the question because you are meant to assume that you will only be using only whole numbers and no decimals seeing as that exceeds the shows thought capacity.
0 likes+phantasm1004 RIP
0 likesShould've said "squared numbers", 4 is a square number and that by 4 gets 16. Very confusing
1 like+Lethargica Stengah I guess he's trying to say that it would be your only redeeming quality right now.
0 likes+Steven Miles isn't 0 an integer?
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 its wording is fine. Probably should have mentioned square whole number since any number square whether be irrational can add up to 16, 36, 49. Other than that, the wording is fine the way it is.
1 like+TisfatDude0703 It was poorly worded.
0 likesI would have worded it as: Which of these square numbers also happens to be compromised of two consecutively smaller squared numbers?
^ at least that makes more sense. I know math, I could figure this out but it took me a while to figure it out.
Oh wow. After watching I thought it was A too. See now this really messed me up. Screw this lol.
Xilence I guess that does make sense. Putting the word "consecutively" there gives you a hint, which makes the question easier. But I still don't think that the original question was "poorly worded". The only possible square number that was the sum of two smaller square numbers was 25. How did you think it was A?
1 like+TisfatDude0703 was worded completely fine lol. just had to think deeply
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 They're called perfect squares
0 likesbluAsterisk Perfect squares are the same as square numbers.
1 like+TisfatDude0703
2 likes"is math gay"
1 yes
2 yes
3 yes
4 yes
+TisfatDude0703 2^2=4 and 4^4=16 ... that is what most people thought.
1 like***** I still don't understand. It said the sum of two smaller square numbers. 4
1 like+ 4 is 8. Also, 4^4 isn't 16.
4*4 typo
0 likes+TisfatDude0703
5 likesThis question is only "poorly worded" if you don't know the definitions of the words being used like "sum" & "square number." That being said, it's not poorly worded at all. In fact, it couldn't be more concise than it already is. It is no one's fault other than your own if you missed the answer because you don't know the definitions of the words used.
Adding clarifiers and details and specifics to the question would simply be distracting & unnecessary.
PS
I loved this comment section. I had to stop reading halfway through & go make a bowl of popcorn. Thanks for that!
+balzonurchin yea it's kinda interesting and funny how people like to waste their time
1 like+TisfatDude0703
2 likesthe question should be "which of the following number is equal to sum of square of two numbers"
+GHSimon3 and that is why you usually have millionaire in your own language :P
0 likes+robertinventor if you don't know the meaning of a sum, you need to repeat your 1 years worth of English and maths classes from the age of around 4
0 likesI forgot the difference between prime numbers and square so I said 36
0 likesMrBigEnchilada Then do some research. "Square number" is a common term.
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 Didn't pay attention to the wording and got it wrong, I would have had the correct answer if I listened to the SUM part of the question.
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 Made perfect sense in hindsight, the math was easy, the precise definitions of the terms was not something I was up to date on. I considered 36 possible, as the sum of 16 + 16 + 4 = 36 and 16 and 4 are two square numbers, obviously not the case but it was confusing.
0 likes+Squiffel that would be three square numbers not two.
0 likesYeah, I know. I understand where I got confused, this type of question wouldn't confuse me again.
0 likes+graphicjazz Yes, but the question wanted the square number to be the sum of two "smaller" square numbers. So for a^2=b^2+c^2, you can't let b=0, because then c^2=a^2 and is not smaller than a.
1 likeit was actually easy to understand the question...nothing wrong with how the question was asked
2 likesBruh Lee I agree.
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 I would have put the word "other" in the question.
0 likesWhich of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two other smaller square numbers?
That would make it more clear for me that they didn't mean what +GHSimon3 meant --> 2^2=4 and 4^4=16.
Bertram Hilhorst Do you not know what a square number is? 4 is a square number because 2^2 = 4. 4 + 4 = 8; and 8 isn't any of the answers.
0 likesRemoving the word "other" would actually make it more difficult because that particular word gives you a clue.
TisfatDude0703 Where in my comment did I even mention 8 or 4+4?
0 likesTisfatDude0703 Also, I'm Dutch. Later, after I finally understood the question, I translated it. Then the sentence itself was much more clear to me. Ofcourse, after I already understood what was meant, but still, even now I think it's hard to understand (the English question).
0 likesSo not being English is also a huge reason I didn't get the question.
+Bertram Hilhorst Dutch people are Kinsey 6
0 likesShiggity Shwa What?
0 likesBertram Hilhorst look it up
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 'Which of these square numbers also happens to equal the total of two smaller square numbers?'
1 like+TisfatDude0703 I did not understand what it was asking at first, but if I did I would've got it. I thought they were asking which one of those numbers that you can add to another squared number to get another squared numberExample: 36 + 49 = 85.Thought they meant something like this.
0 likes+Turtle Philosopher I see what you're saying. However, I'm still not convinced that this is a badly worded question. I'm still not seeing how it could be 2*2. The only possible answer was 25 up there. That contestant didn't read the question carefully enough.
0 likesit was not just poorly worded it was mathematically wrong because all answers are correct because the question didnt say integers
0 likesSaleh Alkandary square numbers ARE integers.
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 0.21 is a square number of something and even its square is a squared number
0 likesSaleh Alkandary In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer; in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it can be written as 3 × 3.
0 likes+TisfatDude0703 This is the most well spoken you tube comment section I have ever seen lmao, I planned on picking a side which was yours but it took me 20 min to read everyone's paragraphs(i didn't read all of them)
2 likesPS: youtube comments cant be taken as patronizing because it's all based on how the receiver of said comment views the person saying it. Example - you can't show sarcasm in a comment unless you say it is sarcasm
+TisfatDude0703 m8 calm down
0 likes+Lethargica Stengah what's bad about a woman m8?
1 like+Steven Miles in conclusion .............
1 likeShut up lethargica
Algorox it took me 6 seconds to understand it.
1 likeHI
0 likesI worked out the answer from the thumbnail before I even clicked on the damn video, what is there to misunderstand??
1 likeAlgorox ki
0 likes+ GHSimon3 The others did have this kind of connection 5^5 = 25, 6^6= 36, 7^ 7 = 49
0 likes+ Algorox The wording was a bit strange; the "happens to be" should be replaced by " is ."
0 likesAlgorox I agree this was the easiest math question of my life and I’m 14
1 likeLol
0 likesI got confused by thinking that it is the same square roots added.
0 likesI couldn't find any answer.
Had no fucking clue until she explained it, so it was worded poorly.
0 likes"Of these perfect squares, which one also happens to be the sum of *two smaller numbers squared*?" 4^2 + 3^2 = 25
the question is asking which perfect squares smaller than the answer choices add up to one of the choices, but worded poorly
Ok, is 0 integer? how about 4*4 + 0*0=16? Therefore , until I know more, the above explanation by Saleh seems to b the most valid to me.
0 likes(smaller number), got it . With my over an hour time spent on it overall, I am finally convinced that the question is correct, until further update. Got love this thread, fine people.
0 likesHere is the real reason its poorly worded. It doesn’t exclude 0.
0 likesBy definition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number ) a square number is an integer multiplied by itself. Since 0 is an Integer and 0*0 = 0^2 = 0 is true it follows that 0 is a square number.
16 = 4^2 + 0^2
25 = 5^2 + 0^2
36 = 6^2 + 0^2
49 = 7^2 + 0^2
Holds true to all four answers. Therefore all answers should be correct
This game show is a typical example of non-vigorous mathematics gone wrong.
The correct way of wording it would be the following:
Which of these square numbers N ={15,25,36,49} also happens to be sum of two smaller square numbers s1,s2 ∈ S = {s∈ Z | s*s} with s1,s2 > 0
Wholeheartedly agree, I'm so glad I found this gold mine of a comment section that I was involved in two years ago lmao.
1 likeValid point, but I doubt the majority would think of the possibility of 0 being a square number, even though it is. So your wording is correct, but this game show would never throw out such a mathematically worded question.
0 likesAlgorox I literally answered it within 2 seconds of seeing the answers. Didn't even see the last 2. Bam 25.
2 likesThe reason the question does not need to explicitly exclude 0 is that it implicitly did (by demanding that the two square numbers are smaller than the result). It is not the responsibility of the question writer to spoon feed you the answer.
1 likethank the stars for one decent comment in this section, finally!
1 like'Please give us a decently worded version'. Lol. Are you from the show management and hosting committee?
0 likesImagine if it said: Which of these perfect squares is the sum of 2 smaller perfect squares. Boom 10 x more clarity, would've solved it in under 2 seconds easily
0 likesWhich of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two unique/different square numbers?
0 likesI thought it wanted me to add to 5 with 2 & 3, or add to 4 with 2 &2 at first. But then I realized I can do that with all of them and figured it it's asking me to do 16+9
0 likesI’ve been reading like the 10 first comments and then you guys start arguing about patronizing and some other shit. This is what idiots look like. They always argue over shit
0 likes"Which of the following is the sum of two square numbers", the fact that they mentioned all the listed numbers are square numbers, which has nothing to do with the question, makes everything confusing because now you think the question is more complicated than it actually is.
0 likesIt is legitimately just the pythagorean theorem. Basically, it is just saying provide c when both a and b are integers.
0 likesThe question is mathematical wrong since
0 likesA)16 is the sum of squares of (√12)^2 + (2)^2
B)25 = 3^2 + 4^2
D)49 = (√40)^2+(3)^2
And there are infinite possibilities for each option.
For B)25 to be correct, the question should have been some what like this:-
Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of squares of two distinct smaller square integers/whole numbers/natural number.
For those who do not know the meaning of integers, whole numbers, natural numbers please refer your maths books or Google.
Ankur Sharma it was implied that all numbers had to be integers, but not outright stated. While technically you are correct, you are overthinking it and that is not what they meant to ask
1 likeBarnabas Kim buddy that makes no sense
0 likesFlat Box Cross "Perfect square number" is redundant. Either "perfect square" or "square number" are fine. They are interchangeable. You did not contribute anything to the meaning of the question. The question is not poorly worded at all.
0 likes@QuantumHornet Square numbers are integers. That is the definition of a square number. Therefore, it is explicitly stated. It is your fault if you do not know the definition of a square number.
0 likes@Ankur Sharma Your version of the question is so long that it wouldn't even fit in the text box. Go look up what a square number is because you don't know what it is. Lethargica said the same thing you did 4 years ago.
0 likesAlgorox square numbers are not integers always. squares can be non integers. For example, what is the sqrt of 2.5?
0 likes@QuantumHornet Square numbers are always integers. Please go look it up.
0 likesThis man doesn’t know his Pythagorean Triples, 3,4,5 9,16,25
134 likesReplies (14)
or:
6 likes2772 9605 9997
(i.e. 7683984+92256025=99940009)
or 4795 8772 9997
(i.e.22992025+76947984=99940009)
Source: This: http://www.tsm-resources.com/alists/trip.html
You don't even need to know that.
28 likesWho cares?
5 likesCommon Cool Channel
3 likesWell you obviously do.
I meant I don't care that we don't even need to know that.
0 likes5 12 13
1 likeIs this the Krusty Krab?
0 likes6 8 10
Lol..the bragging..9,16,25 are pythagorean triples? Haha
4 likesI have no clue what that is yet I could answer that so.... moot point.
1 likeCommon Cool Channel No need to act hard and show your useless talent over here over a stupid easy question.
1 likeYou mean 9, 40, 41.
0 likesThat was the first thing I thought too lol
0 likesno he didn't mean that, there are plenty more
0 likes6 8 10
0 likesI'm a math major and thought it was 36.
0 likesReplies (1)
As a math major I would assume you to remember the famous 345 Pythagorean Triple.
0 likesIf you ever covered Pythagoras' Theorem this is insanely easy
111 likesReplies (11)
Ratty Ikr, it's like the first example of Phytagorean numbers
1 likeOr if you've been finding the magnitude of vectors (which uses Pythagoras too).
2 likesAltai Yildirim well not exactly 6th grade in the U.K. U get taught when you're 13/14 but I learnt it when I was 10
1 likeRatty I just worked my wake up from 2 squared- I'm 14 and it wasn't that hard
2 likesRatty yeah
0 likesOmar Beydoun you really don't believe that, I learned that stuff when I was in 6th grade.
0 likesReally this is basic trig. 3-4-5 triangles are very rudimentary.
2 likesRatty lol yes
1 likePythagoras' Theorem isn't even required for this, you just need basic knowledge of how square numbers work.
0 likesXD
0 likesYEah
Also Geometry Dash BayVe
he said makes it insanely easy, not just possible.
I know xD
0 likesAudience did cheating with this guy surely
0 likesAlso the logical approach here if you dont know the answer is to ask yourself: Whats my current location? If it's USA then you should know the answer that audience picked is deffinatley not the correct one
0 likesFrom the thumbnail alr knew its 25...its simply 16+9. What's so hard?
170 likesReplies (6)
actually was x²+y²=z² z² being some of the answers
5 likesr/iamverysmart
2 likespilledestodes The answer is 16
1 likePedro Yadier Nieves Diaz no its not
2 likesI would of picked 25 even by guessing to be brutally honest. The answer just pops out.
0 likesIts a pythagorean triplet.
1 likespeacial triangles 37 and 53 it was the only thing he had to know
0 likesThat's the American education system for you.
45 likesReplies (1)
angc214 That is because you do not know the brazilian system.
1 likeWhen asked what 3x3x3 is and they say 9
0 likesIt's not the math. That's super easy. The problem here is the question.
1 likeAnybody else had this in their recommend for some reason?
103 likesReplies (2)
Yes I did :D Apparently time is repeating itself again
2 likesI have been watching a lot of Stupid Game Show Answers lately...
3 likesDid no one learn about 3 4 5 triangles in school??
0 likesthats Amurica for you right there !
275 likesReplies (26)
that’s a stereotype right there!
13 likesThat's stupidity beyond anything right there.
12 likesTo be fair it was a pretty weirdly worded question. People who read that will instantly have their mind wander to 2 IDENTICAL, smaller squared numbers. Which isnt the case but a reasonable assumption.
6 likesRohan Dick It is a simple solution. Never said it wasn't. But it was poorly worded.
3 likes@HydroDragonN
6 likesAmerica isn't a race.
FACTZ OVERDOSE I think you’re simplifying the definition of racism a bit, but yes, I know America isn’t a race
0 likesFACTZ OVERDOSE I couldn’t think of a better term off the top of my head
0 likesSorry, we have archaic school systems based upon the value a person has, not the penitential.
0 likes@Var R a rich indian is worth 10 rich Americans so shut the fuck up and go to your mama
1 likeAmerica : A country where people take guns to school but not books.
4 likes@Ishwar LMAO poor triggered beta loserish Indians. It's actually the richest America worth four times the richest Indian.
0 likesHow delusional are you lol.
@Var R go check again kid
3 likes@Var R + The guy above me
5 likesWhen you can't take a joke so you resort to your racism
@HydroDragonN not racist. This is the result of our failing school systems.
2 likes...who even thinks "American" is a race anyways?
DynamicWorlds did II not specify that I knew America isn’t a race? Anyways, I guess racism wasn’t a good choice of words, but still, it’s stereotypical to refer to idiocy and American as synonyms. I’ll edit it so that I don’t annoy any others. This thread is a shitshow anyways
1 liketrey gamez overthought*
0 likesXoreign honestly, I love PATHAGOREAN triples and the FACT the question was read so weird made me so mad. My favorite one is the 6,8,10 triple
0 likes@HydroDragonN like you guys never stereotype others.
0 likes@HydroDragonN talk about generalising. You clearly don't know how much people generalise India and Indians.
1 likeMuzicNation Official have you read any of my replies? I haven’t done anything to discuss or generalize India. I never even mentioned India for gods sake! And yet both of you are here saying that just because a group from my country may do something rude, or may have a misconception on another country or group, that I am to blame?
0 likesSay USA Spanish speaking countries are teach that America is a continent and includes North, South and Central America so when someone says "America" we will always mistake it
0 likesVictor Rodriguez that’s fair
0 likesishu rao - Yes, that would be correct for AmUrica, & that is exasperating and embarrassing for the whole of the USA. But let us distinguish between AmUrica & America. We are two separate nations within one. Just know that those of us in America saw the correct answer immediately. I haven’t even watched the video. The thumbnail shows the answer (B) quite plainly.
2 likesI clicked to see the comments. They don’t disappoint.
Bilbo Baggins - Knock it off. You have no idea how wealthy some Indians are. I’ve seen it personally and it’s every bit as insane lavish as the richest American.
1 likeAzii Reflect - Should have made that “Baggins” into “Draggins” (as in dragging).
0 likesI’m Finnish and I didn’t get it right.
0 likesI am 11 years old just calculated it in my head😂
0 likesAs a sixth grader, this was extremely hard to watch.
0 likesSquare of 3 plus square of 4… this is an easy one
0 likesThe U.S. education system must be terrible.
56 likesReplies (21)
Carlos Emilio Salazar Mendez I didn't know this and I'm Canadian. The question made no sense
4 likes+lovelyxskinny
18 likesThen the Canadian education system is awful as well.
The question did made sense, and English is not even my first language.
+lovelyxskinny
1 like1*1=1
2*2=4
3*3=9
4*4=16
3^2 + 4^2 = (3*3) + (4*4) = 9 + 16 = 25
Carlos Emilio Salazar Mendez I was homeschooled never learned this from what I remember 😂 I'm going to school to be a Doctor so luckily I don't need this kind of math but thank you. I got it after I saw the answer then realized what the question was asking. 😂
3 likesCarlos Emilio Salazar Mendez The question was worded horribly. Haven’t seen pothag in years. Most people would have gotten it if it was worded sensibly. Get off the high horse, Jose.
2 likesLol you won't even set your eyes on becoming a doctor without knowing simple maths like this...
1 likeAli Moh it is simple maths. But the question is worded horribly
0 likesI didn't understand the question because I don't understand English very well. lol
0 likesKallsin He didn't understand the question he could have asked for clarification, that isn't what happened here, but you tell me, what would've been the appropiate way to word the question?
0 likesYet everyone wants to be us. Your name sounds like the 10's of thousands of illegals that try to cross over to be U.S. citizens every month. Stay out stinky.
2 likesI’m good at math and I guessed 16 as well. Seems like the only one you could square twice lol that question was worded badly. When she said the answer I was like wtf that’s cheating lol.
0 likesI'm not a native speaker but I thought the question was worded just fine. Basically you have this information:
0 likes- you're looking for an integer which is the result of another integer multiplied by itself;
- that number is also equal to the sum of two integers, e.g. 2 and 3, multiplied by themselves.
How else do you fit that into a relatively short, readily understandable sentence using words the average high school graduate is supposed to know?
hiro takeda You hate U.S. because you ain't U.S. We set the bar and we are the straw that stirs the drink. Stay out, we don't want anymore people here.
0 likes@lovelyxskinny Thank god....I am indian... atleast our education system is good!
0 likesCarlos Emilio Salazar Mendez Since one American couldn’t answer a math question on national TV then the entire US educational system must be terrible. Are you sure you aren’t mentally handicapped?
1 like@ABHISHEK SINGH
0 likes"Good", tf?
it took me a minute to understand the question, it wasn't worded properly
0 likesRB FingerMagic Maybe your brain isn’t wired properly.
0 likesShakespeare dipshit that isn't the right way to frame that question, u of all ppl should know that.
0 likesRB FingerMagic It took me about five seconds to read the question and produce the correct answer. I had no issues with it at all.
0 likesI'm also not a native English speaker but i understood the question well...I answered it before the options showed up..
0 likesHe didn't know Pythagoras theorem
0 likesthats a tricky question. kind of unfair. its designed to trip you up.
0 likesAlright youtube I'll watch it
31 likesReplies (3)
No one cares about you
0 likes@Mr. SPARKLES I care
1 like@Mr. SPARKLES i care bitch
0 likesHold on does it mean like 16=4x4 or 16=8+8? If it’s the later then ain’t no way you’re doing this in a minute (haven’t watched whole thing)
0 likesOk wait that makes so much sense now
and why the heck is this in my reccomendations
116 likesReplies (5)
Probably youtube think you're bad at math :)) just kidding
4 likes@An Tran 😂😂😂😂
1 likeCause your dumb as fuck and YouTube knows it and now so does everyone
0 likesCos you suck at maths
1 likeBecause you watch random videos & youtube is dumb
0 likesWTF.. what about the audience?? OMG
0 likesEasy math, hard to understand the way question was written.
1 likeI took only 5 seconds to answer....
64 likes.
.
.
.
This wrong..
Replies (3)
Well me too, Because I've read it badly (I thought it was product and not sum)
3 likesYou had us in the first half, ngl
0 likesWhy can't it be 16? Since 16= 4^2 +0^2
0 likesI think people thought sum meant multiplying so thought 4 x4
0 likesWhere the fuck is this audience, Alabama?
22 likesI thought it was A.... ffs... I'm dumb
102 likesReplies (18)
I don't wanna hate or attack you, but can you please explain how you got to that conclusion?
11 likes@Amon the same as the other 50% of idiot's
21 likesNo you're not there are others also
1 like@Amon I second this. Please tell us how 16 seemed to be the right answer at first?
1 like@varun manjunath I don't know about them but for me it was 4•4=16 and 2•2=4
42 likesIf you ask me, anyone who can't process how somebody might come to a different conclusion are the real idiots.
27 likesHikariJake How? If you happen to get it right by using the correct line of thought, it can be very difficult to see how others could get the wrong answer.
6 likes2^2*2^2
2 likesPiotr Rywczak Absolutely not.
0 likesDamien G oh my god i just thought the same
0 likesDamien G
5 likesSum means addition
NuclearCraft it’s not difficult at all to see that others might make mistakes.
0 likesDid you do this method?
3 likes4²+0²=16+0
=16
Then you're Super genius.
7 likesAmoNto be honest I thought the question was insisting “what square number is the sum of another square number?”, and so I thought A was correct also. Since I was assuming we were using perfect squares, I had thought that root 16 equals 4, and root 4 equals two (where all other solutions wouldn’t have resulted in a whole cube root number). I didn’t understand what the question was asking so I answered incorrectly but at least my math was correct under my assumptionAdithya Ajit a square number IS a perfect square. For example, 16 is a square number; 17 is not a square number. That couldn’t be made any more clear
0 likesNo, offence, but your profile pic says it all... jk.
0 likesHonestly your profile picture is really hilarious! You picked out the right one!
@Sebastian Olmedo seriously, this is my happy face.
0 likes@Damien Germosen But that makes 20, which wasn't an option?
0 likesIf this was in any country other than usa, i gurantee the audience wouldve got it right
296 likesReplies (11)
Nope. Not even close.
17 likesUSA is full of lackluster brains. Their average IQ doesn't even touch on triple digits like the UK's does.
27 likesMax DragonSoul I’m going to be honest here. The U.K only averages 2 IQ points higher than the U.S and that’s because the U.S is filled with gangsters who probably average a 50 IQ
28 likesRed Guy but you can’t characterize a whole of millions of people it is legit impossible.
11 likessuny123boy1 because a lot foreigners come to America
5 likesThat's cause we actually let your people in...
1 likeYou forgot to mention India and China specially
5 likesRandom User lmao
0 likesOrganic Potato There are definitely extremely smart individuals in US but looking at the country as a whole, I highly doubt that IQ is high enough to be considered smart or even good enough honestly.. I would never say this an American if I'm talking to someone in person but I was shocked when I got to interact with some people in US. No offense at all but the only way to solve a problem is starting off with realizing there is a problem. Btw the reason why there are so many world leading IT companies is because US has a very few smart people who are capable of leading the company and enough smart Indians, Chinese, Koreans,etc. that will actually do all the work for the industry
2 likesTapTapGo
0 likesNah, Indians know Math, trust me.
The only reason USA has had so much entrepreneural success is that it got lucky during the second world war due to its strategic positioning and many of the greatest minds of Europe migrated to US to escape Nazis.
0 likesCuando no sabes Pitágoras xd
0 likesWait wtf? They picked A on purpose or what
0 likesLol.. any average Indian guy would have answered this within like 1 minute
71 likesReplies (20)
shubham joshi within a minute is insanely slow that is legitimately garbage if they are above the age of 14 and not mentally challenged. About a second is all it takes for anybody who knows this. Its a very well known pythagorean triple.
37 likes@QuantumHornet hahaha 30 secs one can take in a hot seat to understand that question😁.
2 likesIt is just the pythagorean theorem my dude. Simple stuff. Obviously normal people would have forgotten that, but i, still being in school, and bring a math nerd, remember it. The question is just asking “which of the following numbers is the sum in a pythagorean triple”
0 likesDude anybody wouldve answered that in like 15sec max, thats like 1 +1 for us. We have been getting the same numbers for pythagorous theorem throughout school
1 likeshubham joshi I’m American and it took me like 5 seconds. Pretty easy question and have known this since 5th grade
0 likes1 minute , i can answer this in under 2-3 seconds...
1 likeEven 6th class student in india can answer this..
relax Indians asian curriculum are not far different most are taught phytagoras since end of elementary schools that guy is just dumb
2 likes@Enony Muz apparently the whole country is dumb
1 likeDid your dumbasses forget to factor in the intense pressure of an audience watching you?
0 likes@New York 😂 it's like saying your full name it's that fucking easy to even count in the pressure
0 likes@New York that just shows how dumb you are
0 likesI'm 12 o figured it in 12.444771899π66299√7189 seconds thank u very MUCH
1 likeExcept Indians are to busy calling me pretending to be the IRS asking for money.
1 likeNot indian and still solved it in 2 seconds...
0 likes@Traumatized Wick @Crypto Master Yeah thats why more than half of the audience from your garbage country didnt know the answer and an Indian guy runs the website youre posting your stupid and ignorant comment on lol.
0 likesMore like instantly
0 likesIt doesnt take an entire minute smfh
0 likesmore like 10 sec
0 likesthis is baby shit 5 seconds
0 likesI knew the answer before they even revealed the answer A
0 likesLmfao
0 likesfree 16k. Literally 8th grade math
0 likeslol this is so easy
30 likesReplies (3)
Aca 792 my ass
2 likesYes it is easy. Anybody who doesn't think so needs to go back to school.
1 likeIt is easy, but feeling the need to humblebrag about it is exactly the type of thing school does to people.
0 likesall 4 fit the criterion.
0 likesThe way they worded the question was misleading
1168 likesReplies (90)
Bob Costas no, not really. He's honestly an idiot.
198 likesNo, not really. All the terminologies were legit. Its just that you weren't capable to understand the question.
202 likes"The question was ambiguous"
51 likesI disagree. I can understand why people don't understand what the question was asking, but that comes from not reading it carefully or from not knowing the terminology. It does not result from ambiguity.
"But also if you are an illogical person, you wouldn't know that the two square numbers didn't have to be the same"
What in the question implies that you need to add a number to itself?
***** Yeah, that makes sense. But I wouldn't call that ambiguity.
9 likesThe question was ambiguous but for a different reason. It's a bit pedantic, but all the answers are technically correct it was never stated it had to be the sum of two squares of integers.
31 likesFor example 16 = 8+8 and 8 = (2√2)^2. It's pedantic, but what can you expect from a mathematician?
***** Well, the definition of a "square number" is the square of an integer, so the word "integer" doesn't explicitly need to be stated in the question.
63 likesMuffinsAPlenty
7 likesAs I said it's pedantic, but sue me I did 4 years of a Maths degree and it's just a part of mathematics.
It is commonly understood that "square number" represents the square of an integer, but you can technically consider square numbers on any possible numerical system. For example 7 is a square number in the ring of integers modulo 9 (4 * 4 = 16 == 7 mod 9). Any mathematical definition is relative to it's premises, and the premise that we are dealing with the ring of integers is not necessarily true for this question.
I concede that the use of "square number" in the question is pretty unambiguous here, but I couldn't help but point out the pedantic ambiguity that I instinctively saw.
***** Yes, sometimes words can be redefined based on the context or convenience, etc. However, if someone is using a nonstandard definition of a term, the responsibility of making clear the nonstandard definition lies with the person using the nonstandard definition.
23 likesBut let's take your ambiguous claim a bit further. For example, if "square number" is ambiguous because you could choose a different ring from the standard definition, wouldn't specifying "integer" be ambiguous too? What if someone wanted to interpret "integer" to be a Gaussian integer, for example? Then 16 is a sum of two "square numbers" since 5^2 + (3i)^2 = 16 and both 5 and 3i are Gaussian integers. Or what if they wanted to interpret "integer" to be an element of the ring of algebraic integers of any number field? For example, the number field Q(sqrt{2}) has ring of integers Z[sqrt{2}]. Then your earlier example of (2sqrt{2})^2 + (2sqrt{2})^2 = 16 still works, even if "integer" is specified.
And who's to say they might not choose a completely different meaning for the word "sum"? Why not use the sum in the tropical algebra? Then 16 is very easily a sum of square numbers since 4^2 + 5^2 = min{16, 25} = 16 in the tropical algebra.
Are you expecting someone to start by listing the axioms of ZFC (or GBN or whatever set theory they should choose to use), then constructing the natural numbers, then the integers, then the rational numbers, then the real numbers, going through all of the basic definitions of real analysis and measure theory, etc. before they can begin to talk about Lp spaces? This is an absurdity, but by your argument, if they don't do all of this background work every time they are giving a talk, publishing a paper, etc., then their work is technically ambiguous.
When the term "square number" is being used, the standard definition is a square element in the ring of integers. Yes, you can have square elements in other rings. But by using the word "number" rather than the word "element" we are dealing with a very particular ring.
And you'll find this happening all the time. You can define the notion of a prime element in an arbitrary commutative semiring, but when you use the term "prime number," you are specifically referring to primes in the semiring of natural numbers. Similarly, you can define a notion of a transcendental or algebraic element over an arbitrary field extension, but when you use the term "algebraic number" or "transcendental number," you are specifically referring to elements of the field of real numbers or the field of complex numbers which are algebraic or transcendental over the field of rational numbers.
MuffinsAPlenty
18 likesYou're entirely correct. That was roughly the point I was making in that technically there is ambiguity, but only at the extreme end. It was nothing more than a fun point.
I had to read it a second time, but it's not worded hard.
2 likesOnly when ambiguous means "i am stupid".
12 likesI first thought they had to be lower than the lowest number in the answers but it is understandable anyways
1 like
2 likes16=4^2 * 1^2Oh, "sum" means "total"
★ Cuddlepuff ★ Sum is the result of adding numbers.
0 likes★ Cuddlepuff ★ Aaaand 1^2 is not 2 XD
0 likesCochu U What?
1 like★ Cuddlepuff ★ 1 times 1 equals 1
0 likesCochu U no shit?
2 likesnevermind
0 likesCochu U Yeah... Cause you clearly misunderstood.
1 likeYou thought I said 4 * 2 * 1^2
But actually, I said 4^2 * 1^2
★ Cuddlepuff ★ yep XD
0 likesYes I thought it was A because 1x1=2 2x2=4 then 4x4=16 So I thought it meant it was a number squared and squared again.
1 like+Owo lo but 1x1 doesn't equal 2. . .
11 likesim ded
1 likeIM OFFENDED
1 like+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo+Owo Io onetimesoneequalstwo
1 likei thought you had to find which number could be squared twice. like 16 squared is 4 and 4 squared is 2... o.O
1 like16 squared is 256
3 likes4 squared is 16
Trevor St-Jean i think you mean square rooted
0 likesayy lmao😂 I mean😂 yeah i definitely😂 meant square😁 root😁😁 haha😅 silly me😁 how can I😄 be mistaken 👍 👍 good shit 👌👌 if i dooo say so myself 😬 (chorus: "right there") 😜 that's what i'm 🤔 💀 talking about 😏 😏 mhmmmm Yeahhhh 😫 good shit 💪 💪 💪
2 likes> "But also if you are an illogical person, you wouldn't know that the two square numbers didn't have to be the same"
4 likesLet me demonstrate with an example.
"Two birds sit on a tree..."
OMG how can that be since things are equal by default, like is there one bird sitting in two places at once or what but that violates the Pauli exclusion principle of quantum mechanics....
HEAD EXPLODES
Trevor St-Jean !!!!!!!!!!!!!yo pass the right triangle
0 likesbusTedOaS aaaaaa AAAAAAAA
0 likeshow is it misleading? "gee lets count small square numbers.. 4, 9,16, 25.. hmm oh look 9+16=25." It's a warm-up for a middles chool algebra class.
11 likesBob Costas how is this misleading....if this wording is hard to understand then try some partial differential equation application problems
0 likesdude even half the audience didnt know the answer because of how badly the question was worded xD
0 likesTrevor St-Jean more like people should get a functional brain and not be a complete idiot
1 likeIn no way was it misleading
4 likesprozvidz In yes way was it misleading. Hence why people were mislead.
0 likesPreston Granger people were "mislead" because they do not understand the definition of certain terminology's. That does not mean the question is misleading
1 likeprozvidz Or maybe they do and it was misleading.
0 likesPreston Granger then tell me, what is misleading? Because all I can see from the comments is people having different (wrong) opinions of the definition of square numbers.
1 likePreston Granger "which one of these square numbers happens to be the sum of 2 smaller square numbers" unless youre as brain damaged as the audience and the contestant you should be able to know the answer in 2 seconds
2 likesBob Costas I agree entirely.
0 likesBob Costas It's actually not misleading lol
2 likeslol this was so easy.. whats misleading there? tell us how to get to 16 with ur logic...
4 likesu think two can be a four? so the sum of 4? or what xD
4^2 + 0^2 = 16
2 likes16 is not smaller than 16 though
8 likes16 + 0 is also a correct answer.
0 likesRob it says two smaller square numbers, so it's not correct
1 likedepends if u say 0 is a squarenumber some say it is one some say its not :d plz dont quote wiki to proof
0 likesNo it wasn't.
11 likesSHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!
0 likesBustaDeluxe 0 is a squared number, but the question says sum of 2 smaller squared numbers, 4^2+0^2=16, you're right, but it's not sum of "2 smaller square numbers" 16=16
3 likesHow would that help? They say it has to be a smaller number.
0 likesKuo Lee
0 likesit is stil la sum like 8+(-8) = 0 is still a sum so 0^2+4^2= 16 is a sum of 2 square numbers
I don't see where you're trying to go but -8 is the square of ±2√2i (not a natural, making -8 not a square number) and 4^2 is not smaller than 16
1 likeSHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!
0 likesdatnix.. are u stupid? the guy said 16+0 is no sum because there is a 0 in it... i just told ehm what is a sum...
1 likeThis is an easy question and anybody who is 12 years or older should be able to answer this. A sum is the answer to an addition statement and a square is assumed to be a perfect square where the square root of the square is an integer.
3 likeshow the fuck is that misleading? A square which is a sum of squares. Not complicated
2 likesBob Costas hahaha no it's not. If you have basic reading comprehension skills you'll understand the question
1 likeI knew the answer but understand what bobs sayin. Stop being dipshits
1 likeno, guessing you are bad at the standardized tests
4 likesBob Costas it was not worded poorly
1 likeThe wording was not misleading and the wording is not bad but It is confusing when you are really stressed out and money is at stake
2 likesLaekoStormz this is a discussion thread, if you are not interested then just don't reply instead of being unnecessarily rude with comments that add nothing to the discussion.
5 likesmost people read 'sum' as 'product'
3 likesI did too, gotta read more carefully
it may have been a bit hard to understand, like it took me a minute to understand what the question meant, but in no way was it "misleading". Misleading means it leads you to believe something other than what is true, but the question didnt do that at all. Either it was a comprehensive issue or math one.
7 likesI think you are confused. The square number you are talking about in this example is 16. But 16 is not smaller than 16, so it is not allowed. Because the question said that the square number has to be a number that is smaller than the sum. This is what Kuo Lee was trying to tell you.
1 likeBob Costas I think you're slow lol
0 likesMillerIndustriesInc Sum never implies product, what are you talking about?
2 likesBob Costas Stop complaining. It was simple math... 9 + 16 = 25.
3 likesJake Darby was looking for this in the comments. All the answers are correct!
0 likesNo it was not, English is my third language and I understood the question
2 likesBob Costas u sure , u know english
0 likesoops sorry,USA Dont know what grammar is ?
Nishant Bagree you don't know what grammar is shut the fuck up
1 likeThere's nothing wrong with the wording of the question. Anyone who knows anything about Maths know the word 'SUM' is another word for 'TOTAL' so the answer was simple. 2x2 = 4, 3x3 = 9, 4x4 = 16, 5x5 = 25.....Which 2 square numbers add together to make another square number? Easy 9+16 = 25
3 likesIt's like on the gameshow 'Pointless' the other day with 3 questions about tv soaps. The 1st one wanted the 'actors/actress' names, and the next two wanted the 'character' names, but because the contestants didn't listen to the questions properly they thought all 3 required the actor/actress' names. They got lucky as out of the 3 actor names they gave for each of the 3 questions, the one what required actors names was correct and won them the money. The other 2 were wrong because they didn't listen or read the question. Thats just 1 example of contestants I've seen recently not paying attention on quiz shows. Quiz shows always make the odd easy question slightly more complicated to put doubt in your head. Like if I asked "Which ship hit an iceberg and sank in 1912?"
1 likeeveryone would know its the Titanic, but by saying something like "Which ship set off from Southampton to New York and sank in when it hit an iceberg in 1912?" It would put a little bit of doubt in your head.
Bob Costas 1000th like.
0 likesBob Costas the question was pretty clean and understandable. Understanding the question should Be doable imo
2 likesIKR...how difficult can it possibly be putting the words "the" and "next" around the word "two"?? >.<
1 likeOMG why does everyone keep saying this? What kind of joke easy math tests do Americans have in their middle schools? I would've gotten this right away. It's a very clear question
3 likesThe answer is a square number (The answer is a number that has a whole number square root)
that is the sum (meaning addition, not multiplication or it would be "product")
of two smaller square numbers (they also had to be square numbers)
In grade 7 algebra they always made us do right angle triangles, and I always remembered the easiest right angle triangle was the "3cm, 4cm, 5cm" triangle because it didn't involve any fractions. 3squared = 9, 4squared = 16. 9+16=25. square root of 25 = 5.
And so, 25 is the answer. They worded it perfectly fine, nothing they said was inconsistent, and I challenge you to provide a better worded version of the question, but really he's an adult, he SHOULD be able to do this if he remembers his middle school math.
Jake Darby if every number is a square number then the word has no use
0 likesYou say that the definition of a "square number" is the square of an integer. That is how you learnt it. I'd say a "square number" is product of 2 numbers multiplied by itself.(Product of 3 numbers in case of a cube and so on) Like finding an area of a square. x^2 is x*x. From the way we learnt, half the time we never gave a fuck if we had an integer as a square or not. We would write it as an irrational and it would still be right. If we start including irrationals, every answer will be correct. So yes mentioning they would be an integer is necessary.
0 likesSince when did we start using language as a means of expressing maths? Give people an equation and if they cannot solve it then you could say they are bad at math. But if I give you a word problem in russian and fail to solve it, I wouldn't blame that your maths is bad. I'd say your russian is bad.
Or, as an analogy, you see these question floating around the internet which go like 1 + 2 * 3 = ?
You'd say the answer is 7 following the BODMAS rule. But you're in my quiz show and I'd say you're wrong because the answer is 9. (1 + 2) * 3 = 9. But hey I didn't use parentheses but that's not my problem. You're too stupid to understand what I meant.
Not it wasn't. How is it misleading?
0 likesSquare number which is sum of 2 square numbers . If u can't understand this u should educate urself lmao
0 likesThe question wasn't supes clear, but it was multiple choice so like how could it have been interpreted any other way.
0 likesIt was surely confusing, but wasn't misleading at all.
0 likesBeing not familiar with english terminology I read square as the "quadrier" instinctively as 1 word meanings are formed in 1 word in german so for someone who didn't grew up learning math in english this surely confused me cause the translation I used also gave a possible solution (A). I didn't think of "Quadradzahlen" also there is a common term used as for "quadrierte Zahl" which if they just had used squared whole number I don't think such a lamguage barrier could happen. So yeah misleadibg to not native speaker.
0 likesWell, ask them about celebrities and the Einstein in them would come out
0 likes√3²+4²=√25 lol
1 likeThis kind of mathematics is done by 6th grade child in india
Because india is a place where one of the great mathematician born i am talking about sir ramanujan 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Replies (1)
Yep exactly
0 likesOk my fellow Indians, I know we're good at mathematics but lets just stop flexing too much
575 likesReplies (56)
Dibas Sarkar Rightly said ! Indians bragging too much in the comments section . Criticizing the audience so that it makes them feel better of themselves
44 likesOmg hahaha, after reading your comment I saw that most of those comments are from us Indians!!! xD
20 likesI'm pretty sure people (not only Indians) are aghast because of the audience poll aspect, otherwise this video would have been just like other "Who wants to be a millionaire" fail videos. :P
Indians have nothing else to really flex on so yeah
28 likesThat has nothing to do with math lol :D
1 likelol
1 likeA bunch of Slumdog millionaire wanttabes!
2 likes@Shikhar Dahal
16 likesBut it's a fact that most of the people from the audience were ridiculously stupid. I mean, I understand the person being in lot of pressure but the audience was not and could easily think out the answer in a minute. And it's astonishing that 50% of them voted A. Most of the people present there were actually stupid.
FACTZ OVERDOSE May be but it still doesn’t make sense that indian people bragging about their superiority in mathematics. You may be superior in mathematics but not in all fields so bragging doesn’t make much of a sense
5 likesPeople who called us "country of snakes" deserve this....
10 likesRight
1 likeAshutoshh Guurjar - Who called India “a country of snakes”? I tried finding that quote on the internet, but no luck. It’s obviously an offensive thing to say, so, I’m interested in who said it.
8 likesI’m an American, and that’s only because I was born here. The good and bad things other Americans do says nothing about me. There’s not much to brag about these days, but let’s say I was impressed by our huge military. I didn’t create the American military, so why should I brag about it? The only person a person should brag about is themselves, and even then it’s impolite.
Indians aren't good at math. Chinese and Russians are.
3 likes@Var R you don't know about ramanunjan the man who knews infinity which gives the solution of sum to infinite which is -1/12,so how can you say indians are not good in maths
10 likes@SHIVENDRA SRI. you are clearly ignorant LMAO. That's called sum to infinite series . For convergent series the sum to infinite could be any real number .
8 likesIt just shows you don't know math.
Ramanujan is a genius. It doesn't mean all Indians are .
Infact Indians never won the international math Olympiad. the test to which India sends it's best every year .
hahaha but it was SO easy tho.
0 likes'I know we're good at mathematics'. Hmm, I myself am Indian and I do know we have quite bright mathematicians, but I do not see us doing well in competitions such as IMO.
0 likesYes, but me and all the other Asians can do it instead.
1 likeYeah😂it took just like 20 sec. S to answer
1 likepitchfork you sound butthurt . Maybe stop ramming that pitchfork up your ass
0 likes😂😂😂😂
0 likesWe are good at mathematics I'm 15 and I got it right in like 30secs
1 like@Var R bro then u don't know about Subhash khot..the winner of silver medal in two consecutive years 1994 and 1995 in international math Olympiad, and Akshay venkatesh in 1994 of Indian origin..won a bronze medal in international math Olympiad at the age of 12, second youngest to do that..and if Indians are not good in maths...then we would not be a CEO of the world's largest software company Google..(Sunder pichai)..so it's very clear we r good in mathematics.
2 likesChinese are the stereotypical mathematicians not you. When Americans say Asians they really mean Korea, Japan and China because they're thick as shit.
0 likesWell.. you have not come across the real mathematics then.. this question was child's play
0 likesNoo I'm not good at math even though I'm Indian, (so shame on me now) bt still I knew this one😂 it was a stupid question nt even 7th graders have that simple ques
1 like@billy you kidding me?
0 likes@prem Kishan lmao India's population is one sixth of the world's population. Shouldn't india win one sixth of medals on average?
1 likeWhy are you pointing sunder pichai lol. How is he related to math?
Also Indians can't code.
Tell me ONE good software product from India .
@Var R bro, America population is 4.37 percent of world's population, is it win 4.37 percent medal in international math Olympiad?No...so according to your logic no country has won medals in international math Olympiad according to his percentage of population..so no country in the world knows maths? seriously?and without the knowledge of Maths u can't code...and u will not become the CEO of any software company and there are many software start up in India for example..Aujas, canvas flip, canvazify, cloud cherry, cure spring, drona HQ ..and the genius of the world Albert Einstein says without indians we will not be able to reach moon, space.. because we gave the decimal system...and recently a Indian origin boy arnav Sharma beat the iq test of Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking in mensa iq test...so have some knowledge of India bro..then comment.. LoL
2 likesDibas Sarkar fellow asians
0 likesØath betrayer are you his bitch? How do you know what he does?
1 likeExactly, now let me and my fellow mexicans watching flex
0 likesOk but t - series still gay
0 likes@Dand but I thought it was transgender.
0 likes@prem Kishan Are you dumb lol? CEOS doesn't code. There is something called Wikipedia to know the facts. Now learn completely about "International math Olympiad" and text here. Your knowledge about how things work in corporations is extremely limited. You need to learn English lol .
0 likesBruH
0 likesBhai KBC KI COPY IN LOGO N HMSE KI H ,YA HM LOGO N INSE😄
0 likeswhy do Indians almost always type in bold lmao
0 likesAsians are better
0 likesI am an Indian. I suck at maths, but I may be good at something else. Its not compulsory to be good at maths, people need to understand that.
0 likes@The Lord Yup. We arnt Asians. We are from Mars.
0 likes@kipper lol ur dumb
0 likes@Var R I am answering to everyone who are saying that Indian are not good at Mathematics.
0 likesLet me get the facts right
Indians have been using mathematics even before most of the people even knew what it was.
The decimal number system in use today was first recorded in Indian mathematics. Indian mathematicians made early contributions to the study of the concept of zero as a number,negative numbers, arithmetic, and algebra.In addition, trigonometry was further advanced in India, and, in particular, the modern definitions of sine and cosine were developed there.
From Harrapans to Arya Bhat to Ramanujan we have had a fair deal of share in mathematics as we know it today.
We have a majority of scientists, PhDs, CEOs and master students who obviously have a great knowledge. Obviously not everyone in India are good at Maths and I am not saying that we are the best ..I am just saying that we are one of the best in Maths.
good at maths but unemployed
0 likes@som rawat You cannot expect a country with such past and so high population to be 100% employed. This has nothing to do with maths. Those people don't know how to write a word let alone maths.
0 likesAnd why do people in general keep on saying that India is poor and people are unemployed! Why don't you point your fingers to other countries. Don't you know how rich we were! And keep in mind we are the FASTEST growing economy in the world with a very high rate of KPO ( I hope I don't have to explain what KPO MEANS)
@som rawat by the way may I ask this
0 likesWhere are you from?
@Sherlock india bhai
0 likes@som rawat toh Bhai khud ke desh ki burai kyu ker raha hai 🤦♂:)
0 likesMeet Kanodia - It’s important to remember that YOU are 15 and got it right in 30 seconds. That’s pretty impressive by the way! Your accomplishment doesn’t represent the accomplishment of anyone but you. Your teachers and parents clearly helped, but YOU figured out the right answer.
0 likesThis is an interesting opportunity to ask yourself why you got the right answer so quickly. I’m sure you’ll agree that this question is related to the Pythagorean Theorem, which is often not taught to American students at all - unless they pursue math. I assume you have taken algebra and geometry, which is impressive for your age. You might be thinking “Algebra and geometry are standard subjects for my age”. Yes, but only if you live in high-income areas.
I assume you live in India. You should consider the level of education of the lower 50 percent (of income) in India.
@TheTooginator Pythagoras theorem is AB²+BC²=AC² ( In a Triangle ABC) . Yes you can say the question is a bit related to this but I believe that it is common sense to know that 25= 16+9 ( 4²+3²). Also if you don't know this you can easily check all the numbers very quickly. The options are not too big that it is difficult to calculate the squares. If he had just calculated the squares of first 5 nos he could have easily answered the question.
2 likesWhat I mean to say that in general Indians ( and in general Asians) have more focus towards maths and science which makes it easy for us to solve these questions in few seconds...
Arnav Sinha - What you said is true, but you should remember that this fellow was under EXTREME pressure and the host wouldn’t shut up. However, the audience got the wrong answer, which was pretty sad.
0 likes@TheTooginator yea your right
1 likeHe didnt have any luck that day :-
@Sherlock stop bragging about ancient achievements lol.
0 likesZero is just a visual representation. It's not that math didn't exist before that .
Abacus existed centuries before zero lol.
Infact India didn't contribute anything to modern mathematics.
Indians suck at advanced math lol.
It's fact , not useless flexing , a 9 year old can answer that in seconds in India
0 likes@Var R dumbass population doesn't have to do with anything. You can populate pakistan as much as you want but the only thing you will get is more terrorists. You got have resources to thrive. Dumbasses like u don't have slight commonsense.
0 likesTseries
0 likesArnav Sinha - off topic a bit, but I have a question for you. I just watched the miniseries “The Mahabharata” (1989, in English) and I thought it was great! My question for you is: what do modern Indians think about The Mahabharata? Do modern Indians think it’s a great story? Is it a story you grew up with? I’ve seen interviews with Indians about The Mahabharata, but I would be interested in your opinion.
0 likesAlso, I think you should consider writing an article about how Americans could become more interested in math and science. Personally, I think the problem is that Americans don’t respect mathematicians and scientists. This wasn’t always the case. In the mid twentieth century, Einstein was one of the most respected people in America. What changed?
32.. would have worked as well. 😢 Too bad there is no 32. Just a tricky 36.
0 likesReplies (1)
32 is not a square number.
1 likeThey screwed him!
0 likes16 = 0^2 + 4^2.
1275 likesOr even this,
16 = (√8)^2 + (√8)^2
√8 is also a real number.
He should fight back.
Replies (143)
Leap Of faith All numbers that can be plotted on a number line are real numbers(including 0). Numbers like square root of -1 or infinity are not real though.
296 likesLeap Of faith "0 isn't a real number." The fuck? When did you heard of that.
273 likesThe question was about a sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 is not smaller than 16.
432 likesBrilliant... all the options are right
62 likes0 isnt a natural number bro...
16 likes@Gautam Chopra who said it is? 🤔
38 likesHarsh Kumar bro undefined is 1/0...
72 likes0^2 Is 0 and not undefined.
Harald Hey 0 is considered as WHOLE NUMBER .it is neither a real nor a natural number
13 likesHarsh Kumar sorry ,I have studied the chapter 0*0 is undefined when you consider a function with a limit.Here we are not talking about limits.
8 likesPritam Bhattacharya Whole numbers are all Real Numbers as well
15 likes@Harsh Kumar we are no talking about limit of a function it's just 0*0 .that's it
1 like0 is not a square number because square numbers are always positive. 0 is neither positive nor negative. So 25 is correct
25 likes@Harald Hey 4 is smaller than 16 so what's wrong
1 like@John Wilton 0 + 16 = 16
23 likes16 is not smaller than 16. 4 is not a part of the equation.
Every number is a real number
3 likes@Harald Hey 0^2+4^2 so there's no 16 its the square of 4 which is smaller
0 likes@John Wilton The sum of two smaller square numbers. Square numbers are 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...
29 likes16 is the sum of 0 and 16. And 16 is not smaller than 16. Yes 4 is a square number, but it is not used in the equation.
@Harald Hey ohhhh now I understand the question!!!! Ic
3 likesYou are wrong becoz she said smaller number and 4 is not smaller to 4.
5 likesYou are right. But they will not accept because 0 is made in India. So '0' was not acceptable
1 likeLeap Of faith bruh your maths is weak too
9 likesReal no.=rational +irrational no.
Means every known no. Even it is in root or in rational or decimal form it is real no.
Basic 6th grade stuff
Leap Of faith really??....0 isnt a real no. U mad bro?😂
4 likes@Harsh Kumar bro 0^2 comes 0 ...says 0 is a real no. Clearly
3 likes@Harsh Kumar yeah...in limits....normally 0*0 is a real no. No fuckin doubts
1 likeLeap Of faith it doesn't matter if u reply or not in that case.
1 like2 smaller numbers are smaller than 4
0 likesLeap Of faith in maths there is no such thing called nothingness. Everything has a significance. And 0 is damn important.
5 likesIf u go out of maths, then also nothingness has a significance. Everything in the entire universe spiritually, scientifically, mathematically has got a significance.
And ur statement " nothingness is nothing to me" doesnt make sense
Anirudh Kumar they said the sum of “smaller square numbers” and 4^2=4^2
3 likesFrom all of discussion i got you all and all of you are wrong...as if you think that 16 should be the ans....but you need to read the question properly...then you would know that you are wrong...as it is asked two smaller square as 4 is not less than 4 so how do you consider 16 as the ans
0 likes@Keur yes..you are correct...anirudh kumar...see...you are wrong
0 likesSubash Sahu hahahaha yaaas gn kumar
0 likes.
0 likesPHANTOM it's proven that 0 can't have a square
0 likesits clearly written . SMALLER . 4 square is EQUAL to 16 and not SMALLER .
2 likesso he cant fight back .
@divv agg right!
0 likesLet me make the question easier to understand..
2 likesA²+B²=C²
Where A²and B² are smaller than C²
Find C²
Well 4 is not smaller than itself
1 like@Anirudh Kumar harald hey has a valid point. How will you justify that?
0 likesIn that case all 4 answers were right
1 like@MagnusVN no only option B that is 25 is right because the question is a square number which is equal to the sum of two smaller square numbers. If you consider one square number to be zero then the other will be the same as the answer. Example 0^2+16^2=16. This is not valid because 16 isn't smaller than 16. So 25 is the only right answer
2 likesOh .... right!
0 likesAnirudh Kumar Did you even read the question carefully? It says 2 smaller numbers, 16 is not smaller than 16! Were you amongst the audience?
3 likes@pk p Square numbers aren't always positive. (-1)^2 = (-1)x(-1)=1.
0 likes@divv agg Yeah, you're right. So he can't fight back.
0 likes@Mmmmm0d 1 is square number not -1. First you should have clarity about what is square number. In (-3)^2=9 here 9 is square number not -3. Similarly(-1)^2 = 1, 1 is square no. Not -1. 1 and -1 are two different numbers
2 likes@pk p Okay now i got what's square number, its bcz of my english, sorry
0 likes@Harsh Kumar saale chutiye 0*0 multiplication hota hai aur 0^0 exponent
0 likes4^2 = 16
0 likesSo you can't take square of 4 again as the question clearly says sum of squares of smaller numbers, i.e smaller than 4 in this case.
Leap Of faith What the fuck ?
0 likesLeap Of faith there are 16 likes on your comment lmfao what the fuck ?
0 likes@Harsh Kumar no. It's not
0 likesWoooooooooshhhhhhh
0 likesDuck is not the real number she already told smaller squares
0 likesSo it should be less than 4
@Harald Hey How about this?
5 likes16 = (√8)^2 + (√8)^2
√8 is also a real number.
Dude he didn't even have any idea what's going on, how he can fight back 😂😂
1 likeHarsh Kumar u
0 likes@Harald Hey but root of 8 is smaller than 16...
0 likesAnirudh Kumar smaller numbers, using 4^2 when 16 is its square makes it unusable as it has to be >4
1 likeThe first example isn't correct, because the required square has to smaller than the given square.
2 likesBut the second example is correct because it no where specifies in the question whether the smaller squares are squares of integers or real numbers.
Geez, the amount of idiots in this comment section.
1 likeAmethyst Jin Pretty sure it’s integer only since you could pick any of the 4 answers and be right then.
0 likesFor someone who bashes others to be stupid you don’t seem to be that smart, kiddo.
PHANTOM 0*0=0 . 0/0, infinity/infinity , 1^infinity and a few more types of expressions are indeterminent.
0 likesO^2 is not 0...
0 likes0×0 is undefined...
@Anmol Tiwary koi nahi dubara book khol ke check karle
1 likeSqrt (8) and 0 are not considered square numbers for this purpose (why would they ever be?)
0 likesThe question doesn't say anything about perfect square.
2 likes@Upendra Yadav Its not explicitly stated but it can be implied they are talking about perfect squares (especially when all the answers are perfect). This is a common math trivia question.
1 likeif someone has to choose 1 correct option then it would definitely a pythagorian triplet(if in options). I'm just trying to say that others are not wrong, its just that 25 is more correct.
3 likes@Upendra Yadav agreeeeed haha! Definitely a more correct choice as with most multiple choice questions 👍
1 likeAnirudh Kumar Prick.
0 likesHarsh Kumar 0^2 is zero. Zero doesn’t mean undefined.
1 likeYou're right dude
0 likesAnirudh Kumar the definition of a square number is an integer that is the square of another integer. The word “square numbers” implies 1, 4, 16, 25, etc. If they had reworded the problem not using the phrase “square number” or “perfect square,” he could’ve made an argument.
1 likeActually the question was wrong with correct options
1 likeHe must fight back
@Harsh Kumar 0*0 is totally defined, just look a parabola graph, it has continuity at zero
0 likesAnirudh Kumar However, the square root of a negative number is represented with the letter 'i' indicating it's a imaginary number.
0 likesThe question asked square numbers.
0 likes√8 is not a square number neither is zero.
Anirudh Kumar
1 likeYou are right...
The question should mention "PERFECT SQUARE" not only square, since root n square of every number is possible.
the question is telling us that the number is a sum of two SQUARE NUMBERS and √8 IS NOT A SQUARE and 4^2 is not a smaller square number than 16
1 likeYou dumb
0 likesLeap Of faith you dumb
0 likes@Pritam Bhattacharya real numbers are from -infinity to +infinity
0 likesYou dumb
But √8 is not a square number
1 likeThe question is sum of smallest square numbers
1 likeSHIT HAPPENS when you don't define your DOMAIN and then
3 likessome irrational and imaginary people will hit you with their intelligence. :D
@Sarthak Jain no, that's the Pythagorean theory. That true equation will be everything you wrote, but without the square at the end, because than that'd mean you're squaring that number that's in the end.
0 likesThis is not an option
0 likesBut √8 not a square number..
1 likeSo..25=9+16 (9&16 both are square numbers)
It's not a natural number
0 likesThey meant whole numbers squared
1 likeThey meant square of an integer. And smaller squares. So technically, both your statements are wrong
1 like@Alisha square numbers are meant to be squares of integers
0 likes@Tret Last nope
0 likes@Alchemist 0 can be just that 4^2=4^2
0 likes√8 isn't a squared term. It is exactly opposite of what is asked.
0 likesAlso sum of two smaller square numbers is asked.
16=4^2. Not smaller but equal.
√8 again not a square number.
If you want to joke, atleast get the joke right, dimwit. 😒
Leap Of faith No he isn't.
0 likesLeap Of faith Both of you are wrong.
0 likesCorrect but the question said 2 smaller squares. I thought it was C because 36 squared is six then six squared is 3, and if you square 3 you get a decimal
0 likesLeap Of faith bruh 0 is definitely a real number. Real numbers are almost everything (square root of pi, one divided by e^e, etc) except square root of 1, infinity (which isn't a number to begins with), quaternions, and other complex things you don't need to worry about
0 likesHarsh Kumar lol no. 0^2 is 0. 0^0 is undefined. 0*0 is 0
0 likesDennis mob false
0 likesThere can be infinite answers
1 likeLeap Of faith it says smaller square number so A^2+B^2=C^2 given that A and B are smaller than C. 0^2 + 4^2=16 is wrong since B=C thus 25 is the correct answer
0 likesSum of two smaller Numbers!!!! 4 is Not smaller than 4!
0 likes@Pritam Bhattacharya Zero is a real and whole number, not a counting or "natural" number
0 likesMath k teacher na banjo
0 likesthe questions says 2 SMALLER numbers so 0^2 + 4^2 is not valid since 4^2 is 16 and about your second answer it may be true, but the question probably means to different numbers. x^2+y^2=16
0 likeswhere x not equal to y
and x , y < 4
all the ones replying here r idiot trying to be geniuses and make u think u r stupid. they all just talking shits here all of this r bullshits like wtf? i say here 0 is a real number and im a genius because thats bullshit and ofcourse u will have no clue what im talking about. stop pretending mfs! and atleast im honest😂👍👍 haha peace out✌️
0 likesWhat a lovely and relevant comment section 😂
0 likesLet's take this to Reddit
1 likeAnirudh Kumar, they probably mean whole numbers, but they way they wrote it is vague
0 likesI mean using that logic you could justify that every square (abd non-square) number in existence can be shown as the sum of 2 smaller squares. This question should be more specific in stating that the smaller numbers must be positive integers but its safe to assume thats what they meant
0 likesSquare numbers are the numbers which can be the square of all natural numbers.
0 likesThen as per your genius theory, every option is correct. You are a self made man...applauds
1 like@Anirudh Kumar questions is all about sum of 2 smaller square no.
0 likes√8 and even 0 is not smaller square no
They wouldn't allow him or anyone here to argue that 0^2 would work because technically 0^2 would work with all the answers, right? Ie if he chose 36, he'd argue (0)^2+(6)^2=36 with the smaller squared numbers being 0 and 6. If he chose 16, he'd argue (like some of y'all are arguing) (0)^2+(4)^2=16 with the smaller squared numbers being 0 and 4. My point is that they needed to avoid 0 being the argument. 25 is the more 'intelligent' answer if u will. 4 and 3 have more of a value than 0. 0 of anything is nothing, right?
0 likesThe question is so stupid
0 likesI see so many new theories here. Pythagoras should see this
0 likesThe audience may have been stupid, but indians are showing stupidity in the comments
0 likesIt’s funny to read these replies and immediately be able to separate the idiots from the people with normally functioning brains.
1 like0 is not a square number. Square root of 8 is also not a square number. It seems you have misinterpreted the question.
0 likesDude it didn’t say sum of real numbers. It said sum of SQUARED numbers. Jesus this comment is dumb and the fact that it has 1000 upvotes concerns me for the future.
0 likesAll whole numbers are real numbers
0 likesThat would have worked for every answer so its invalid.
0 likesThats the fucked way of displaying it
0 likesIt’s just 25. Accept the solution.
0 likes3^2 + 4^2 = 25
5^2 = 25
Leap Of faith it is considered real number includes rational no.
0 likes@Harsh Kumar kidding me
0 likesLeap Of faith isnt a real what? then what is 0 !? Is it a letter or symbol?
0 likes@PRAVEEN MITTAL yep
0 likes3^2+4^2=25
0 likesQuestion technically meant "Natural numbers" but yea they should have specified.
0 likesBy the way, then every fucking option would be correct. It is a simple question, not a tricky one.
0 likesYeah, they didn't specify "squares of integers".
0 likesHow the hell can such a comment get over 1000 upvotes? If you don't even know how a square number is defined better don't start writing some bullshit about it...
0 likesA square number is the product of an INTEGER multiplied with itself and only an integer, not fractions or irrational numbers.
The question and answers are perfectly fine.
Didn't work out because 4^2 is not a smaller number, and (√8)^2 is only one number. But (√7)^2 + 9 = 16, so his answer was correct.
0 likesThey meant perfect squares
0 likesWhat they meant doesn't matter. They didn't say that. All answers are correct the way they phrased it. They are even correct in an infinite amout of ways. Neither of the options Anirudh suggested are solutions though.
0 likes2^4 + 2^0 =*17*
0 likesAnd when thay say squared number it means by the power of 2 not 4 or 0
Not correct.
0 likesFirst, learn the definition of a "square number", then come back and argue.
It’s sad over a thousand people liked this. 😂 the fucking real answer is 25. Don’t overthink it. This question was only 15k cuz it was so easy 😂
0 likesYou idiots 0 is the first real number
0 likesAnirudh Kumar Infinity is a concept. Not a number. Keep that in mind.
0 likesTo be honest it took me 3 minutes to understand question and 2 minutes to solve it. But my answer was right.
0 likesEven audience doesn't know
0 likespeople say it's badly worded, I don't think so
165 likesReplies (10)
I didn't know this until I realized it was about the Pythagorean theorem -.- Poorly worded 100%
28 likesWhat about the wording would you say is incorrect? Just because you don't recognize what it's asking doesn't mean it's poorly worded.
7 likesfrankjohnson123 never said it was incorrect. It's like using big fancy words to misled people.
1 likeWilson Wohoo none of those words are big and fancy. lol, how old are you?
4 likesThe question isn't to do with Pythagoras' Theorem... Yes a triangle with sides 3, 4, and 5 constitutes being Pythagorean, however no knowledge whatsoever of said theory is needed to perform the basic arithmetic of the question. There are no big or fancy words used in the question either like you suggest in a later comment (in fact you're trying to introduce some if we're being picky here...)
1 likeI honestly thought that they meant two identical square numbers and I was highly confused because that wouldn't be possible. It only took reading it for the 10th time to realize they meant ANY square number. I understand that they probably purposely didn't say "Pythagorean Theorem" because that would then be too easy (as long as you know math). But yes I do indeed think it is poorly worded.
1 likePercussive Chippy it's not poorly worded at all. I've showed this to my friends and they all said 25 because 9 + 16 = 25. most people will just go start adding squares. 1, 4, 9, 16, 25. which of these numbers add up to another square.
0 likesWell when I first read the question I thought that square root of 16 is 4, and 4 is also 2 times 2. On the other hand I couldn't reformulate the question so that you can understand what they really wanted to say, but I guess they could've written 'which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two other smaller square numbers?' Or sth like this
2 likes+Andreea Sandu Huh? I don't know if I should sense sarcasm in that comment or just a lack of observation on your part.. Coz that is literally what they asked. Literally.
1 likepratik mour well maybe it was me who didn't really pay attention, who knows
0 likesIn China this happens the whole nation criticizes
0 likesEven she didn’t explain it correctly
0 likesWell I don't blame him for getting it wrong, that question was confusing and misleading as fuck.
289 likesReplies (60)
The question IS worded strangely.
53 likessuzywoozy71 it really was i was thinking 4+4+4+4 = 16 and thats 4 equal numbers so its a square and 1+1+1+1 = 4 so...
8 likesRobert Kelevra I'm just saying in front of that many people, I would have brain-farted just as much as he did, so I cannot blame him for getting the answer wrong. He should have walked away with the money imo
4 likes***** I'm probably not as smart as you haha
0 likesno it is not.I am a foreigner and understood the question and knew the answer
15 likesionut mihalache The hell does that have to do with you being a foreigner?
19 likesDaVexx420 Idiot 1 Can NEVER Be A Suare Now 2 on the other hand can be
0 likesJoshua Richie didnt say 1 was a squar i said 4 was
0 likesfuck is not misleading, this question probably misled me to fuck
0 likesit wasnt confusing. He was just under pressure.
12 likesthat was my thought too, even when she explained it and i'm good at math :-/
0 likes***** Just saying that under pressure, I'd fuck up too
1 likeseriously? anyone defending this bozo either a) can't add or b) can't multiply from 1*1 to 7*7. the question is worded strangely if you're illiterate
22 likesYou are totally right. That's why the public said it was A as well...
0 likesJohn Hahn 1*1=2? Since when? LOL!
12 likesJonah Duclos: ionut mihalache wanted to point out that the question is perfectly correct and clear even for a non-native English speaker, and I absolutely agree. Sorry guys, but if you find the question "confusing and misleading", the reason is in your math skills, not the wording. It's not a shame not to be good at math, but don't blame the discipline.
3 likesI agree with you because the question should have looked like this:
3 likesWhich of this numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller distinct non-zero square integer numbers ?
Dorin Gaiu Nuts. If one of the numbers were zero, the other weren't smaller, which is explicitly prescribed. This is needless, as is "distinct" - there isn't any solution with identic smaller squares, and there couldn't be any. Those redundant information would actually be misleading and confusing.
2 likesThe question is posed perfectly alright.
Dude thats so easy 25
2 likesEveryone that gave you a thumbs up is as ignorant as you are. Congrats youtube!
13 likesNathan Seltzer And everyone that gives you a thumbs up is as arrogant as you are. Congrats old man who thinks he has something to prove on the Internet!
4 likeslovelydancer113 Who shit in your cereal this morning?
11 likesNot at all? The question couldnt be phrased in a better way and the answer is really easy.... 3 4 and 5 are the most common pythagorean numbers, I guessed that 25 would be the answer before they even showed the possible answers...
3 likesm es i think people are just thrown off by "square numbers" being used twice. if you're feeling pressured, on the spot, your mind can fog up and get confused easily. It would take an English professor to break down the role of each word in the question and maybe figure out an even simpler way to phrase it, but I doubt you'd see any of those around here, for obvious reasons.
0 likesJohn Romano It doesn't help that there is a time limit on each question.
0 likesWhen I went through the video, my brain first thought that it (square number)x2= answer. That line of thinking mislead me long enough to have run out of time.
P.S. I used to be really good at school math, now though I'm not bad, but I usually just am worried about functional math.
It's 7th grade math. You don't know this?
4 likesUnfadingChunk12 No, I don't know this. Please explain how to figure it out. I already know it is not necessarily the number/2, each half being a square. Each of these numbers is a square, but they are asking about Summed parts of it, so that piece of information is actually irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the two numbers it consists of are squares. I'm assuming of Whole numbers, not some crazy fraction.
0 likesAaron Ingebrigtsen This is how you go about doing this question.
9 likes"Which one of these squares is the sum of two smaller squares"
SUM refers to the number resulting from an addition.
To square a number means to multiply it by itself, so a square number is a number you can get from multiplying a number by itself.
X^2 means squaring X.
It's like saying X multiplied by X.
^ is the hat key. (Shift - 6: on my keyboard)
1^2 = 1x1 = 1
2^2 = 2x2 = 4
3^2 = 3x3 = 9
4^2 = 4x4 = 16
5^2 = 5x5 = 25
6^2 = 6x6 = 36
7^2 = 7x7 = 49
Now can we add two of those numbers to get 16? No. The closest we can get is 16 + 1 which is 17.
Can we add two of those numbers to get 25? Well yes, 16+9 = 25. We can stop here now. The answer is: B - 25
Joshua Richie Ya wrong, 1^2=1
3 likesJoshua Richie 1 is a square number and 2 is a prime number.
2 likesPhynos well done. Now it all makes sense
1 likeeh the only misleading part is if you assume that it meant both smaller numbers were the same number
0 likesfyrestorme123 Actual they have to be different or you just get double the number you started with.
1 likeIt looks like the States' version of this show is for retards. That seems about right.
1 like***** it's algebra
2 likes***** It's an algebra problem.
0 likesThough it does relate to the Pythagorean Theorem in Geometry.
I never learned that geometry stuff.
0 likesIf he was keeping the perfect squares in his head, that would have been easily solved. They are all squares, but only one of them is the sum of two smaller squares, and when I looked at a multiplication table, which of course shows the perfect squares, the answer was obvious.
0 likesTop 5 easiest Millionaire questions....You're just bad lol
3 likesStefanel
2 likesIf you're going to try to prove a point, don't contradict yourself by dragging Chemistry into the mix. Chemistry is very math oriented, and if you suck at math, you will fail as a chemist.
Jonoah de Groot I was waiting for someone like you from the very first moment i pressed the "post" button. Sorting that out, clearly makes you a genius, and the terms do not apply to you.
0 likesStefanel
0 likesHaha all good. I wasn't trying to make you out to be a knob or anything of the like either. Some people are talented with mathematics, and others are not. It is not the foundation of intelligence though.
Dorin Gaiu
1 like"non-zero" is not needed since it already said "smaller" which implies that none of the numbers can be zero because if one would be zero the other one would not be smaller than the original one.
Keine Angabe No , two smaller square numbers does not mean that zero is not allowed . Even if 0 is not allowed i can pick infinitely many non-zero different squares that in sum will result any positive number. As, i said earlier , the question was not formulated correctly dumbass.
1 likeyeah, because TWO smaller squares allows you to pick infinitely many smaller squares. TWO = infinity, hmm?
1 likeIf you take zero as one square the other one has to be the number itself and the number itself is not smaller than itself. This means zero is not an option. It does not have to be excluded seperately because it already follows. If you really think that the text is misleading then name another answer that fits the text.
OT: why do you take this personal? I am trying to teach you something about a topic you obviously have no knowledge about at all.
I would be glad if someone explained to me in a constructive way that i am wrong.
I can't believe zero is even being discussed in the context of Squares. Anything times 0 is 0, that is one of the first things we learn in school about multiplication. Squares are multiplication of a number against itself, the power of 2, x^2. If X^2=0, then X=0. Which means nothing has been squared, which means zero is not an option. O.o o.O
1 likeNot being good at math is not what makes someone stupid. Being stubbornly willfully ignorant is my definition of stupid. When someone tells you that you are wrong about something, explains it, and Proves it, and you just totally ignore it, that means you are stupid.
I know, it's hard to accept when you are wrong about something, we reflexively defend our egos, we experience cognitive dissonance, but the Smart people overcome those things when they are convinced that they Were wrong, then study and Become right.
The video posted shows how being bad at math can be bad for you. It does not say being bad at math makes you stupid.
Dorin Gaiu
2 likesYou obviously don't know what a square number is. Let me quote Wikipedia for you:
"In mathematics, a square number [...] is an integer that is the square of an integer"
That's the definition. So go away with random real numbers, they don't matter here. Of course, if you don't know the definition of a square number then the question is not well formulated, that's your problem though and not the questions's one ;)
"You don't even know what is a real number."
Hehe, I doubt that one. This is what math students learn in the first week at university.
Square numbers are the product of an integer times itself.
1 likesqrt(2) and sqrt(3) are not integers.
Therefore (sqrt(2))^2, or 2, is not a square number. Nor is sqrt(3).
If this wasn't the case, every conceivable non-negative real number would be a square number, and the term would be much less useful.
There really is nothing wrong with the wording of the question. They don't spoon feed you on this show, if you don't know your stuff you get the question wrong. That would be the case with the majority of people who aren't familiar with some basic math.
The question was worded perfectly!
2 likesDorin Gaiu Uhm... I am not a "tard", it's just that I never got past Algebra 101. I know what a "perfect square" is though. It's a whole number that is the result of another whole number being multiplied against itself. Not a difficult concept. Most math concepts elude me beyond High School Algebra. The question was not incredibly misleading, he just didn't have the perfect squares memorized, or he was too nervous. When I'm too nervous my brain goes blank, can't think. Doesn't mean he's stupid. He's human.
0 likesThe question was so clear that even I understood it. I say it becouse my native language is spanish (so sry if I wrote something incorrectly)
0 likesOn the other hand, the question was fairly easy, 'couse one can remember from the school than when the hicks from a triangle are 3 and 4, the hypotenuse is 5 (9+16=25).
You have the dumb.
1 likemisleading? wtf you'e misleading over 200 people stay in school
0 likesSpy015 Listen. The question is missing some important point.
1 like4 * 4 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 16
5 * 5 = 3 * 3 * 4 * 4 = 25
the question have to be more specific, like "sum of two smaller and different square number"
Benardy Boen Assuming you made a typo, what you wrote still isn't consistent.
1 like4*4 = 2*2*2*2 = 16 (There's no summation of square numbers)
5*5 = 3*3 + 4*4 = 25
There is no summation of square number just products. A square number is a number which you can get by the product of a number times the number itself. In other words X*X = Square. You can also think of the number as the sides of a...Square. So the area of the square is the square number and the sides of the square is the X
0 likesSpy015 Yes there is. 16 + 9 =25
1 likeBenardy Boen Looks like you don't know what "sum" means. Clue: IT DOESN'T MEAN MULTIPLY.
0 likesJoshua Richie 1 is a square number and 2 is not...
0 likesJonah Duclos yeah I was confused for a while what the question was asking me to do, but basically it’s asking what other 2 numbers when squared, add up to one of the square numbers in the question...
0 likesSo 3x3=9
And 4x4=16
16+9=25
So 3 squared and 4 squared add up to 5 squared
Fu*king 15 years ago 😳
1 likeHow can anyone be confused by this question? It's worded clearly.
36 likesI just don't get it...
"which of these square numbers..."
So we are dealing only with perfect squares.
"also happens to be the sum..."
So we are dealing with addition
"of two smaller squares."
Asking which answers has perfect squares that add up to that answer.
Replies (2)
i agree. the question is worded fine. i figured out the answer right away.
0 likesidk, 16 is a square because 4x4, and then 4 is also a square because 2x2. Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller squares? well 16 is a square number and is 4x4 (ignoring the word sum, or treating the word sum as a non-math related term, which in hindsight is obviously a mistake but yeah) 4 and 4 are the smaller squares because of 2x2 totalling 4.
5 likesAt last I found many of them.
0 likesI can choose whoever I want.
Ok listen:
Which one of you MATH TEACHERS here in the comments wants a job in "iknoweverythingandimsofast" University?
Did anyone else figure it out faster?
0 likesTheoretically, all the options are correct. The question does not say it has to be the sum of two perfect square numbers. For example, 16=1² +(√ 15)² , 49=(√23 )² +(√26 )² . The list goes on.
3776 likesReplies (410)
There is no such thing as "perfect square number".
493 likesThere is "a perfect square" which is equal to "square number".
perfect square == square number.
so, the question was pretty clear, and no, no other options are correct besides the B.
@D D A perfect square is the same thing as a perfect square number. They are products of whole, rational numbers multiplied by themselves. What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers.
137 likesAgain, there is no such term as "perfect square number"
77 likesThere are two terms: "square number" and a "perfect square"
both terms are equal (have the same meaning).
it seems you need to learn what "square number" means. google it, if it's easier. and the question was properly asked.
61 likes@D D Keep repeating your incorrect statement. Eventually, that will make it true?
83 likeshttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
44 likes@D D You never paid attention in an math class nor do you have manners, do you? I'll dumb it down for you.
135 likesA perfect square is a NUMBER, that is the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL NUMBER multiplied with itself. This means things like "n*n" where n can be 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n. To say perfect square or perfect square number is synonymous. They are both numbers.
What OP said was that because ANYTHING can be squared, and perfect square wasn't specified, the original question has THEORETICALLY, as in in theory or hypothetically, an infinite amount of answers. You can square PI, 1.25, the square root of 17, and find your way to the answers listed. 17 is a square, the square of the square root of 17, but it's not a perfect square (or perfect square number, whichever you choose to use) because it is not the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL number multiplied with itself, but rather it is essentially the product of a decimal multiplied with itself.
Make sense yet?
@D D dude you need to go back to school again..
36 likesYou didn't understand at all what I am trying to say.
99 likesI perfectly know what "square number" is.
I am pointing out that the term "perfect square number" does NOT exist in english language.
Either it's "square number" OR "perfect square". There is no "perfect square number". I am not pointing out at the mathematics when discussing this, I am discussing english vocabulary. You can't just make up terms on your own.
Also, I am a 4th year student in mathematics. The discussion regarding this topic is connected to the number theory, by far the most boring and easiest class I took on my university. I don't need to people to explain to me anything regarding this topic.
@D D guy meant rational numbers by saying perfect square lol but his point was right
19 likesAlso, it seems that you don't know that "square number" is the same as "perfect square".
45 likesCan you just google it, please? It is easier to find for yourself that these two terms are completely equal.
Seriously, just type "square number" in the google and find the definition for yourself. You will see that you are wrong.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
45 likesThere you go, my little fella. Literally the first sentence of the page.
"A square number, also called a perfect square, is a .... "
his point was not right though.
50 likesi am saying all the time that "perfect square " is EQUAL to "square number".
he is saying that it is not.
i provided the evidence that implies he is wrong.
therefore, he is wrong.
QED
No. No. No. A square number/perfect square is an INTEGER. It is defined as n^2, where n is an integer and hence n^2 as well. Root 15 is not an integer. Only B from those options fits this criteria. These terms have precise definitions - you can't just impose your own opinion.
71 likeshttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
@D D As a computer systems engineer who has done work for General Dynamics and had offers from Beoing and several from Amazon, and took an abundance of different math courses, I can tell you that I don't know how I can make this any more simple to you than I already have.
38 likesA perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. If I said red and red color, those are synonymous, red is a color, adding the word color at the end doesn't make it mean anything different.
Anything can be squared though. You don't always deal with perfect squares. The simplest example would be the quadratic formula. That does not always square root evenly, squaring the end value wouldn't give you a whole number. The term you'd get in the square root of the formula isn't always perfect square to be rooted leaving you with a decimal.
How about even simpler? If you go into your calculator and type in a random number with a decimal, like 3.68265, you can use the square function on it. It doesn't give you an error, it has a square, but would it be a perfect square, no. Likewise, because no one knows what root 15 or root 27 is off the top of their heads apart from it being a decimal, you just write it as root 15 squared and root 27 squared. Not a perfect square but a square.
Notice: I am using the term perfect square instead of perfect square number throughout because it's faster and one less word. Also, for someone who claims to be a senior in college, the level of maturity and respect you show is highly lacking, immature, and downright pathetic for someone of your stature.
Dude, are you even listening to what I am saying?
67 likesa term "perfect square number" does NOT exist.
seriously, how many times do I need to repeat this.
i already linked to you the definition of that term, TWICE, and you still don't get it.
let me repeat this to you once again. PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER DOES NOT EXIST. that term is non-existent in english vocabulary.
seriously, if i need to do this one more time...
you are literally not reading what i am writing.
44 likesyou keep discussing the mathematical side of this whole mess, yet i am not trying to even touch it.
i am perfectly aware of what square number is.
Also, you, as a computer systems designer, don't have enough mathematical knowledge to compete against me, no matter how many math courses you took. I am not bragging, and I am not implying your uni career was easier, I am telling you that mathematics is not something you majored in. It's simple as that.
I've touched some of the mathematical branches that can only be done in a mathematics major, from topology to set theory. None of those are teached in IT universities.
Just read what Charles Luo already wrote. Even he linked you two links, but either you are too dumb to understand what is written in those links or you are just lazy to open them. It's simple as that.
33 likes"A perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. "
32 likesThat's the whole point I am trying to teach you. You can't simply add "number" at the end of "perfect square", because there is no such term in english vocabulary.
There are only two terms: "a perfect square" AND "a square number".
Both of these terms are EQUAL (they both have the same definition).
We provided links to those definitions 5 TIMES ALREADY.
@D D You are a very ignorant person, and there's no chance of helping you understand such a simple concept that other people in this thread have understood. I've given you example after example in the simplest forms I could manage. A 4th grader would understand at this point.
26 likesAs a last resort, I'll say it like this: perfect square = Coke, perfect square number = Coca-Cola. Coke and Coca-Cola are the same thing, used interchangeably, and are synonymous. One just has the extra term. Likewise, perfect square and perfect square number are the same thing. They may be used interchangeably and are synonymous. A perfect square is a number. What do you get when take out "is a"? A "perfect square number". What is so hard about understanding how basic English works?
Dude, even after all the discussion, you still think that "square number" IS NOT a perfect square.
50 likesHow can I even continue with this discussion?
Just answer me this.
Do you think that 15 is a square number?
Let me copy something you've written in your first comment:
47 likes"What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers."
No, it can't. This is the problem of the whole discussion and mess you've made from the beginning.
Because of your lack of knowledge in the field of mathematics, I have to explain why this statement is completely incorrect.
It was stated in the question that you need to find "a square number".
You are implying that any positive real number is a square number because you can eventually find the root of it.
That is not fucking true. It is the 6th time I am telling you this.
Why is that not true?
Because it is mathematically defined what "square number" is.
Let me copy you the definiton on the wikipedia:
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer"
So, tell me, how is it even remotely possible for other answers to be TRUE in this particular question in the video?
Is number 15 a square number? Of course it is not, because, even though that number has a root, that root is NOT AN INTEGER. Therefore, 15 can't be a square number.
@D D 15 would be a squared number of the root of 15 squared. That is 3.873 (rounded the decimal) squared. The value being squared is not a whole, rational number, so the product 15 is not a perfect square. However, you can still square the 3.873 to get 15. A perfect square is a number that is the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL number multiplied with itself. What is a whole, rational number? Numbers like 1, 3, 15, 38, 1047, etc. Ie, they don't have a decimal or a fraction.
11 likesHowever that does not mean that numbers that do have decimals or fractions cannot be squared. They just won't be perfect squares. PI, 27.28573, even root values can be squared such as the root of 15, which is a decimal. Something like 3.87..., but typically root numbers are simply written as root x squared to save time. Are these squares? Yes! Are they perfect squares? No!
Again, using the term perfect square in place of perfect square number to save time in typing.
This is the last comment I'm making on this subject. If you haven't understood English by now, you won't ever what with your stubborn ways. I'm not wasting any more of my time and energy explaining basic math to you. I have more important work to do. Happy commenting 4th year math student!
Holy fucking shit, I swear I have never met anyone dumber than you on youtube. It is literally impossible for someone to be THAT stupid to not understand a simple fucking definition of "square number".
82 likesAGAIN, I am going to copy the official definition of a SQUARE NUMBER:
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
SQUARE NUMBER = PERFECT SQUARE
Read that, slowly, for 5 times. Read that until it gets to you. Please, for the love of God, try to understand one simple sentence. It can't be simpler than that.
How is it even fucking possible that you majored in anything regarding engineering, when somebody lacks even 1% of logical thinking is beyond me.
A 5 year old would already understand what "square number" is.
SQUARES is not equal to SQUARE NUMBERS
You can't simply add words into terms and think they are the SAME
That's why I told you already that PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER is not a WORD in ENGLISH LANGUAGE, same as how SQUARE is not an equal term to SQUARE NUMBER.
Holy fucking shit.
D D, I think they're trolling you, given that the definition of a square number is easy to find.
34 likesNo way somebody would go that far with trolling. His tone in this conversation made me think he was serious.
47 likesD D Lol I said I would stop, but this comment you made is too funny. Riddle me this. What do you think the definition of an integer is? It is a WHOLE number, a number WITHOUT FRACTIONS. More definitively, it is a 32-bit whole number. What is a fraction? A number with a decimal. Can you square fractions? Yes, you can! If you actually did any of the math you claim to, you'd see that you work more with fractions and decimals than you do integers. So how do you differentiate between squaring an integer and squaring a non-integer value? Well squaring an integer results in another integer, a perfect square number. A number that is a perfect square. What do you get when you square a non-integer value? A non-perfect square. Or simply a square number. A number that is squared, but not perfect. Are you seeing how English and math coexist now? Also, considering that dictionaries don't define more than a single word at a time, neither perfect square or perfect square number, nor square number will show up, so... 🤷♀️
9 likesYour anger and poor understanding of basic topics is truly laughable, yet sad and exhausting.
"What do you get when you square a non-integer value? A non-perfect square. Or simply a square number. "
59 likesYup, the previous guy was right. You are deffo trolling. Nobody is that stupid.
TheCelestialFox, any number can be squared, but not every number is a square number.
48 likesThe definition of a square number has been given to you several times.
That being the case, you must be trolling, and so I won't be feeding you from this point on, and I suggest D D refrain from feeding you as well.
@Nicky Tannock That's the very point I'm making. Any number can be squared, however there are numbers that when squared result in a perfect square number, and others that when squared result in a square number that isn't perfect. Depending on if you are using an integer or a decimal, you will get one or the other. The fact that basic math and English have failed you both is astounding. And simply because someone doesn't agree with what you say because you don't understand the definitions you yourself provided (seems like a case of the copy-paste without actually reading and understanding what you're using like a lazy high schooler) doesn't make one a troll. It's a simple difference in views.
5 likesThere's a difference in products when you square an integer and when you square a decimal, and by your own admission, they are not all square numbers, they are not all perfect square numbers, they have different characteristics that means they have different names to differentiate them.
I've already stated all I can in a respectful manner with utmost patience, it ends here though. You two enjoy your misguided ways of mathematics and English. I'll be enjoying my weekend from here on out. Thank you for the somewhat interesting debate though.
So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."
39 likesAlso, read these definitions of a square number.
30 likeshttps://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/square-number.html
"The number we get after multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."
There would be no point, you are correct.
35 likesIf that was the case, a square number would simply be a positive number, and vice versa.
Don't mind him. Either he is trolling or he has no logic whatsoever to comprehend one single sentence properly.
@jz I'm saying that absolutely any number can be squared, however, HOWEVER, a perfect square is the multiplcation of an integer, which is defined as a whole number, a value without fractions or decimals, with itself.
6 likesHowever, you can also square numbers that are NOT integers, like the decimals you presented. What would you call the products that result from the multiplication of a decimal with itself? They certainly wouldn't be integers. Thedefore it does not fit with the definition provided. It certainly would not be a perfect square by your own admission, that would nullify the mention that the numbers being multiplied have to be integers.
Work the rest out for yourself please, I can't make things simpler than I have already tried.
What I'm saying is that perfect square numbers are those that are integers from integers. You will never get a non-integer value from squaring an integer. But you will always get a non-integer value when squaring a non-integer. It's not a perfect square, it's a non-perfect square, so it's a simply a square number because something, not an integer, was squared to get the value. It's still a square, but it's not a perfect square. And adding number at the end of these terms is acceptable because they are indeed numbers.
I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.
20 likesAfter reading half of this disscussion may I just ask why you all aren't cooperating.
14 likesThis conversation could've gone way more peacefull (You know... without insulting people as having less knowledge than a first grader) and you would also be able to find a solution.
The question was pretty clear. I don't have a fucking calculator...
4 likesThe discussion can't go without insulting when you provide proof of something to be true, and the other side does not understand it, especially if the proof is consisted of one single sentence.
35 likesJust imagine this.
You keep saying a duck is not a bird.
I keep posting you the official definition which shows that duck is a bird.
You keep denying it.
I post the definition of a duck 6 times to you, where it clearly says that a duck is a bird.
You keep denying it.
At that time the insulting should start pretty much.
@D D
2 likeshttps://www.mathwarehouse.com/arithmetic/numbers/what-is-a-perfect-square.php
Janki Sagar, notice that the definition of a "Perfect Square" is the same as the definition of a "Square Number", and there's no definition of a "Perfect Square Number" as being something that is different from either a "Perfect Square" or a "Square Number". All of which is D D's point.
24 likesYou've no idea what square number means apparently. Almost only D D in the reply chain knows what he's talking about
31 likesDamn, I just read all these comments ... doesn't even matter who's right anymore ... both are idiots.
31 likesNumbers must be integer if not mentioned otherwise
0 likesIm so happy I was born hot, and was able to make money by beeing a hooker. I don't have to deal with this shit. Anyway, who wants me?
23 likesProlific Pineapples expect the unexpected
7 likesyidingcao Besides if all the options were “theoretically correct” why were they wrong? The people who make these questions have to be very precise with their wording and answer choices to avoid any sort of controversy.
5 likesJesus Christ the intelligence is strong in this thread.
26 likesSemantically square number = perfect square. And a perfect square is a product of a rational number multiplied itself. Therefore not all of the choices can be a square number.
I'm going to assume 99% of the people in this thread are trolling for the sake of my faith in humanity
This guy actually sued the show. Google it.
8 likesPEOPLE! PEOPLE, PEOPLE... calm down. We're on YouTube. There's no need for that. Dear lord. Hahahahaha.
2 likesNo one is becoming the new Einstein because of that. It's simple math, everyone understood what the question wanted from the participant and there's no need to be fuckin literal at those questions.
11 likesWhat would you do? Answer: - HUH DUH, EVERY ALTERNATIVE IS CORRECT BECAUSE OF QUIK MAFFS.
What would happen? - YOU LOST - Game Fuckin Over. Lolollolol.
Everything is situational. If you're smart enough to understand maths deeply, you probably have enough IQ to understand how pointless is to apply that logic at this situation.
@yidingcao Pythagoras theorem makes this ez as cake
0 likesSeems like thecelestialfox has given up.
2 likesExactly
0 likesHahaha
0 likesIn Spanish, it is much more common to hear the term "cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square) than "número cuadrado" (square number). However, the term "número cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square number) is also considered valid.
5 likesI leave here an extract of the Wikipedia in Spanish:
Un número cuadrado perfecto (perfect square number) en matemáticas, o un número cuadrado (square number), es un número entero que es el cuadrado de algún otro.
Maybe all this has been a misunderstanding in the language.
Might be in Spanish, but again, there is no such thing in english vocabulary. I even tried googling it, and went for few pages and didn't see one single result for "perfect square number".
17 likesHowever, that isn't really main topic of the discussion. The main topic is someone misinterpreted "square number".
But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers. Yindingcao is totally correct. All of them are right. It's just that there is a BETTER answer which is 25
2 likes@Nicky Tannock they aren't trolling. What he's saying is you can find the root of any positive rational number. Which makes it square. I'm pretty sure the guy being asked didnt really think that far ahead, as I can tell he froze when the word square number was said, suggesting his knowledge in math is very limited, or he's super stressed out. That why he lost at the end
2 likes@Abdalla Ahmed, the definition of "square number" is "The number we get after multiplying an integer by itself." so no, only 25 is right.
19 likes@D D Wow I salute your patience in explaining the correct definition.
30 likesExactly!
0 likesShut up
0 likesU r right bro...
0 likesI think I should get a fucking golden medal for this whole discussion.
33 likesWhat amazes me even more that, even though I linked the definition of it 10 times already, and others did as well, there are still people like @Abdalla Ahmed who keep commenting "But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers".
Did people lose their ability to read? Or were they never able to comprehend a sentence in a logic way?
It doesn't say it has to be the sum of ONLY two square numbers, so you could say 49=47+1^2+1^2
4 likes@cheydinal
38 likesoh god..
Ok Einstein
0 likesHere are my previous comments in response to hopefully clear things up:
9 likes1. So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."
2. I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.
3. Read these definitions of a square number.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/square-number.html
"The number we get after multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."
@D D Stop with your childish arrogance dude. You can not be rude with everybody just because you're a "4th year student in mathematics". The only value of math its because we use in Physics as a tool. Otherwise you guys in mathematics have the same status as clowns or actors. Or street singers. Its not really Science.
9 likesAnyway, in the specific subject you are right.
*Maths
1 likeMINEIRO math is also extremely important in programming, finance, banking/money, solving number related problems, and a lot more. Please search it up!
26 likesI completely agree with you tidingcao, a guy could've sue them and win.
0 likes@Verdi it's selling mathematics short to say its only applications are in physics. Maths is a very absolute science, often much more exact than physics. I study physics but have a great appreciation for maths, even if I often discard everything they say because it's irrelevant to my solution
10 likes@Verdi As someone who owns a master's degree in mathematics and works as a financial analyst making a lot of money, I can assure you physics is not the only field using math or else I could've easily called myself a physicist.
14 likes@D D you don't deserve any medal the way you handled it, sorry.
9 likesWhen you are too smart to get it right...
0 likesThat not “theoretically” true. A squared square root cancel each other out, so nothing actually happens. You didn’t square 15 when you square rooted it. If this is your argument, then it is just as viable to say, “the square root of two numbers added together...” which is NOT the question given. In math, there must be consistency and precision. Changing the question to fit a “theory” is not consistent. It is also imprecise to say “all options are correct,” because that means there are infinite correct answers, which makes the question pointless, and therefore, non-theoretical and nonsense.
3 likesTheCelestialFox I think what DD tries to state is that "square number" =/= "number's square"
5 likesAny real number that is not an integer is not included in the first definition (which is the one the show uses).
I find your discussion even more weird as I'm Spanish and not English speaker. But I think I've catched what each of you wanted to explain. It's only a matter of a word's definition. And, in that case, DD was correct.
Have both of you a nice day.
MINEIRO We'd still be in the stone age if it wasn't for mathematics.
4 likesWell, maybe I've exaggerated a bit. We'd be in the Iron Age. Since then, maths were essential for Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.
Maths is the language or code the Universe is written. And it has many applications for social science too (economy as the main one).
I can asure you, as an aerospace engineer student, maths are pretty important for human development. Without maths there would not be physics or any way possible to measure economics data. Without physics there would not be engineering (it wouldn't exist either without math's applications in engineering by itself, like geometry) or any industrial revolution (and of course any digital era), and without money, commerce would be extremely difficult and primitive.
Yes, definitely in the Iron Age.
Migue24680 Si "número cuadrado perfecto" es lo mismo que "número cuadrado", quiere decir que no se puede hablar de "número cuadrado" para los cuadrados de números no enteros porque lo estaríamos equiparando a un "número cuadrado perfecto".
0 likesEs decir, que la coletilla "perfecto" es redundante en este caso pues no diferencia nada. Y, de hacerlo (es decir, de establecer una diferencia entre número cuadrado perfecto y no perfecto), habría que desechar el término "número cuadrado", a secas. Al menos tal y como viene en su definición de la wikipedia (que debe de ser el cuadrado de un número entero).
Un saludo.
Nerd
0 likes@D D bless you for trying, but I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you, nobody is actually 'that' stupid. It's like arguing with a flat earther at some point you just have to walk away.
13 likesNever argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
D D heh you rekt him
1 likeI am actually divided if he trolled me or not.
12 likesThe problem is, he was trying way too hard for that to be just 'trolling'. But again, after repeating myself for 20 fucking comments, I can see there is possibility he was trolling. guess we'll never know
@D D I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AS A FRESH COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ELECTRONICS GRADUATE, LMAO EVEN I KNOW THERE IS NOTHING CALLED A "PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER",
6 likes"PERFECT SQUARE" IS THE RIGHT TERM FOR A "SQUARE NUMBER" WHICH ARE JUST INTEGERS THAT ARE MADE UP BY SQUARING OTHER INTEGERS, WHY DO YOU NEED TO TOUCH THE MATHEMATICAL PARTS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE VOCAB PART OF IT SMFH
THAT SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEER WITH HIS ADD NUMBER TO THE END STATEMENT MADE ME LOSE SOME BRAINCELLS
D D looks like he was inventing his own math there lol, wouldn’t be surprised if he’s lying about his work and offers too
2 likes@D D if he wasnt trolling, that man obviously got his degree at Devry
2 likes@Cheydinal You found another ...language v/s maths... Was the question specific,is the real discussion. Even though some sentences are clear as per global acceptance but still there is scope left for little ambiguity . And that is what adds fun to life .
0 likes@D D
1 likeYou might be right being a major...1)that a perfect square and square number are same n
2) no such word as perfect square number exists .
But he was not saying something irrelevant,u shouldn't be so arrogant. I am immature in math but I still know ur points are the globally accepted ones,as kids when asked of square numbers,we used perfect squares quite thoughtlessly but maths is not just believing existing proofs but to question and English is not static ,it evolves as per our convenience . He just wanted the word perfect fit in ,to make things clear as all numbers are squares (but not all are square numbers-agreed). Being a knowledgeable person,you shouldn't belittle others,instead just prove your point calmly .
A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait .
1 like@Memoline M "He just wanted word perfect to fit in" - Since I copy-pasted the definition of number square, which shows that it is equal to perfect square, a word PERFECT is already fitted in.
8 likesMy whole point in discussion was that people are not able to make up terms on their own, adding or subtracting words whenever they want. Mathematics is all about precision; and it is quite important to use terms properly as they are defined.
Just imagine this for a moment: that people use a term "root number" instead of just "root".
So they will be like "A root number of a number 16 is number 4." Don't you think that sounds kind of idiotic? If you used something like that, academics would laugh at you.
@D D Was the statement on if u added perfect or if the question should have had the word-perfect ...to be more specific leading to only one single interpretation ? Someone said only should be mentioned ,leaving no space for consideration of atmost and atleast . Someone said two *different smaller* should be mentioned as it can be taken as same . Well we all know it's a show after all ,it won't spoon feed ,we have to get the logical meaning ourselves but confusion is not something unexpected .
0 likes@Memoline M That comment made by someone else was just plain stupid. Why would it need to say two DIFFERENT square numbers? If there was a square number that is a sum of two smaller, EQUAL square numbers, that would also be the correct answer.
4 likesNo given answers in this question satisfies that. Not 16, not 25, not 36 and not 49.
To be even more precise, there is no such a number in general. It is a known fact in mathematics.
If a, b and c are integers and equation a2 + b2 = c2 is satisfied, then a and b can't be the same parity.
If a and b are not the same parity, it pretty much means they can't be equal; meaning that a2 and b2 are not equal.
Therefore, there isn't a square number that can be a sum of two same square numbers.
@Memoline M "A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait ."
11 likesI can see you didn't read even half of this discussion to claim something like that. I tried to explain it to him calmly for 10 straight replies, and he stil didn't get it. Also, he is the one who first said that I didn't pay any attention math class, as well as he first posted about his career.
It wasn't me showing off that I am a big deal dude, I was just showing that the topic regarding this dicsussion is something I know and I've studied, so he could take my replies more seriously. I surely don't have a need to prove my worth on the internet to unknown people.
@D D Yeah,u did fine in the beginning...I read it whole...it was admirable till u used the F word , calling all retards . Discussion is positive till slangs are involved . U seemed respectable ,so such language didn't suit ur knowledge,so I said what I thought .
1 like@Memoline M Yeah, I just took a few lectures on law for my economics college course, so I already kind of got into the mindset of looking for loopholes
0 likes@Cheydinal You didn't find any loophole in the question though. You are aware of that, right?
10 likesBro underroot 13 is greater than 4,
0 likesAnd Question clearly says smaller square no.
@D D
0 likes4.84 is also a square number but it is not counted in perfect square because its root has decimal. Were as 81 is a perfect square because its root is a real number.
Theoretically you're a fucking idiot too
0 likesthey're not as smarty-pants as we all are so just tone down to their level
0 likes@Narendra modi (communist version) Please, please tell me you didn't write that after actually reading the entire thread...
15 likesThey should have specified "integer numbers" instead of "numbers"
0 likesBoy you must be fun at parties
0 likes@D D i salute you honestly if i was in this conversation i would be ripping my hair off by now
10 likes@D D oh i finally read through everything man you have so much patience and these people who are complaining about language wont be able to handle when this happens to them, i have dealt with someone like that in the past and have never been able to handle it this well i really applaud you my friend.
8 likes@Arturo Arellano oh yeah man, this discussion was definitely hilarious.
0 likesit was the most fun i've had since i was 7 years old and got my milk teeth to fall out.
@D D if you square a non-integer value you can get a perfect square easely you stupid piece of human society. Just pick your non-integer value carefully.
0 likes@D D if you square 2,64... you get seven. If you square 3 you get nine. Nine + seven = 16. Yes, 2,645... is also a number.
0 likes@HaobinLu oh.my.god.dude. you are so right. i am so fucking dumb.
13 likesFields medal is on your way bro.
@D D just trolling
0 likes@HaobinLu i know dude.
0 likesyall making things complicated. The question made perfect sense.
2 likesAlthough you are correct, it is beyond obvious what was meant by the question. Your excuse is invalid.
0 likesMapplesauce not rational brother, integer. Rationals are fractions. (Naturals are whole numbers from 1 up. Integers are the negatives, 0 and the naturals. Rationals are the fractions p/q where p is an integer and q a natural number. Real numbers all the numbers I just mentioned plus the ones you can’t express in a fraction. Complex numbers are the reals plus the i numbers.)
0 likesLOL’d during this reddit like thread🤣 esp at the people forcing their PC agenda on mathematics! “Multiple people can be right!”
5 likesBy Euler’s ball sack they sure as fuck can not!
This whole clusterfuck of a thread originated by people NOT understanding how the fuck mathematics works.
Like homey DD said:
step 1. Everybody agrees on a definition.
Step 2. You then reason from those definitions.
Step 3. You (or peers) try to make sure you didn’t make any mistakes by deviating from definitions.
You CAN NOT!!!! just make up your own definitions.
I totally understand the point fox is trying to make. It seems logical BUT IT’S WRONG because that’s not the definition we agreed upon.
Perfect square or square numbers are 1,4,9,16.... or any number that is the square of an integer. 1^2=1, 2^2=4, 3^2=9, 4^2=16 for example.
As you can see 15 is NOT in this list because it is not a square number. (And because perfect square means the same thing, it’s not that either.)
There is no integer between 3 and 4 that you can square to give you 15.
Because 3^2 gives you 9 and 4^2 gives you 16.
But fox keeps insisting you can square the root of 15. WHICH IS TRUE.
But the root of 15 IS NOT AN INTEGER!!!
And that my friends is the clusterfuck of coming up with your own definitions.
So if you wanna argue w a mathematician, if you’re doing mathematics in school or if you’re studying it for fun.
Then DRILL the definitions into your head and reason on from there.
I sincerely hope no one is confused anymore ab why poor and patient DD is right.
@D D Damn you know how to cheat on tests in math class cause you are to stupid to past any math test
0 likesActually according to the definition presented by MathIsFun, it must be an integer multiplied by itself. Although I understand your reasoning, the square root of 15 and so on are not integers in the first place, so your logic is incorrect. Here is the definition copied exactly:
0 likesThe result of multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself.
@D D Also, the term "a term 'prefect square number'" does not exist in grammar. It should be "The term 'perfect square number.'"
0 likesALSO, WILL YOU STOP ARGUING?!? THE DEFINITION OF A SQUARE NUMBER IS AN INTEGER MULTIPLIED BY ITSELF. I N T E G E R.
@Neonlaser yeah, because grammar is what is so important in this discussion.
2 likes*Real numbers only right
0 likes@D D People in 3rd grade have taken 4 years of math. That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
0 likes@Gabe Weisdorfer not quite sure what you meant by that comment. to be more precise, not sure to which comment you are replying exactly.
0 likes@fisher hey moron, you are right. i am definitely stupid to PAST any math test.
3 likesWelp I just had a heart attack trying to read these replies R.I.P.
2 likesTHE BANANA MAN heh same
0 likesyidingcao hecking nerd
0 likesNot sure if anyone pointed this out as of yet, but "Theoretically" here as presented demands an abstraction from the original assumption that one and only one answer is correct. So while your definition holds, technically the question is valid as presented, under the assumption there exist only one correct answer. Ergo, we are to assume the stricter scenario.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox the question said is a square and the sum of two SMALLER square numbers
0 likes@TheCelestialFox irrational.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox he is not arguing the math. He points out that terms like square numbers mean 1 4 9 16 etc. Thats the definition of the word like cubic numbers mean 1 8 27 etc. Any number can be squared or cubed but is not referred to as square numbers as a general rule or general definition of the word
2 likes@Vlinder007 I completely forgot this thread existed lol. I left to enjoy my life like I said I would. Nice to see the guy I was talking with originally is still here though, that's funny.
1 likeAnyway, the question presented in the video asks for a the sum of two smaller squares, yes (as a sum of anything typically includes numbers smaller than the sum, not including negative values). My whole point, and the OP's point, was that the term square was not defined so theoretically, hypothetically, in the land of possibility that sum could've been made by squaring any number. You can square anything from decimals, to square roots, to whole numbers. However, my thing was that you have perfect squares and then you have squares. A perfect square is a square, but a square is not always a perfect square. You can square PI, which gets you 9.8796..., but is that a perfect square? No, because it's not a whole number being squared to get another whole number, but it's a square. You can square 3 and get 9, which makes it a perfect square on top of being a square. So for the sake of the question, because it was not asked to get the sum using PERFECT squares, but rather just squares which can be completely arbitrary for any of those possible answers any of those answers could be correct. However if they phrased the question saying it had to be done with perfect squares, then yes, 25 is the only answer that works.
@TheCelestialFox by your argument all numbers are square numbers ao why even have a term like square numbers if by your reasoning all numbers are squared so we can just stick to calling it a number why have another term if its useless
6 likes@Vlinder007 I disagree with you about squaring anything, but not calling the product a squared number. Again, if you square PI, the result is the squared value of PI, it is a squared number that resulted from squaring PI. If you don't call it a square, what do you call it then?
0 likesIt's a case of hierarchy to me. All squares are products, but not all products are squares. Likewise all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect. And all perfect squares are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect squares.
@TheCelestialFox but what DD is saying is that a squared number is not the same as a SQUARE NUMBER a SQUARE NUMBER means something very specific
5 likes@Vlinder007 The whole point of having the term perfect square is to differentiate it from the squares that aren't perfect. You run into squares a lot more in math (at least in my math courses for my degree) than you do perfect squares. That's the argument I'm making. Perfect squares and squares are different things in most cases with some overlap because all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect squares. All of them, perfect or not, are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect or non-perfect squares. You can add the word number after perfect square or square, but you can't attach the name of square after any number. I think you've been misinterpreting my claims.
1 like@Vlinder007 I don't remember D D saying anything like that in his original claims regarding me. His thing was that there's no such thing as a perfect square number or square number because you just call them perfect square or square and that they were the same thing.
0 likesI already know that squared number and square number are two different. Respectively they are the term being squared and the term resulting from squaring a term. But he never claimed that when I was talking to him.
@TheCelestialFox not going to argue the same points again the definition of square number means something very specific you as one little individual cannot change that to win your argument if you flatly refuse to accept the proper definition of the term " square number" then ok ignorance is bliss
10 likes@TheCelestialFox there is a difference between a squared number and a square number
8 likes@Vlinder007 I've already stated the definitions of a squared number, a perfect squared number, a square number, and a perfect square number, have stated that each of them have very obvious differences, explained those differences, and related them back to the overall argument of this thread and the video. You meanwhile have merely claimed that "they mean different things" like a broken record without saying what you perceive those meanings to be (which honestly makes you lose all credibility when trying to take some high road you have no business being on). I have not twisted any definitions throughout my entire time commenting on this thread like you seem to be doing with my words like the ignorant fool you've been this whole time. In the end, despite our views more or less lining up (since you want to be a cryptic, non-contributing but somehow argumentative fool that has only said one thing for now, a claim), I find it best to see myself back out of this toxic conversation rather than continue trying to have a discussion with someone as uneducated in the ways of carrying a conversation with relevant and ELABORATED points as you. Have a good night!
1 like@TheCelestialFox my elaborated point is that you are dead wrong and an enormous idiot and a pompous ass too
8 likes@D D Yea I think this has gone so long that people have gotten the both the original premise and topic of this conversation confused. By scrolling down this far, even i've forgotten what the original comment was but D D is trying to say that within the English language, the term 'perfect square number' does not exist but the term 'perfect square' and 'square number' do. He is not denying any mathematical fact from what I can see. The problem is that insults and childish remarks get thrown around in the comment section until it gets mixed up with the initial topic which leads to confusion because no one can remember what they were talking about.
0 likes@D D also I recall you saying that the question was pretty clear and that the answer was definitely B. I would like for you to elaborate on how the original commentor was wrong.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox Good God you are thick as bricks
9 likes@D D Bless your patience with these numbskulls
8 likes@Vlinder007 Yeah, your "elaboration" is on the wrong thing. If you're not going to say why you think my definition of the terms you mentioned but fail to say anything about, but rather just throw insults like a 5 year old, you only prove my point that you're too immature to hold down a proper discussion and argue beliefs like a mature adult 🤷♀️
0 likes@Leighton X That's what I'm trying to argue though. A perfect square is a number. It's not a shape, it's not a color, it's not a person, it's a number. Attaching the word number to the end of it doesn't change the meaning of the term. A perfect square number and a perfect square mean the same thing. Likewise for square and square number. Now if you say squared number (for the sake that it's been brought up in this convo now), while that's also a number it's not the same number as a square one. (Also since it's used as an adjective the word number is more necessary than simply sufficient). What I don't understand is why people who disagree are acting like adding the word number to the terms changes the meaning altogether. It's like saying German Shepherd dog. It's a dog, you can add the word dog to the breed name. It's not conventional to do so, but it can be done without changing the meaning.
0 likesEven in Korean words for colors include the word color itself. Red, for example, is "빨간색". "빨간" means red and "색" means color. Literally translated it's "red color", though it just means "red". You can drop the 색 if you choose in a lot of situations, but you can also use it too.
@B B perfect square number is a number with integer roots
1 likesquare number is a number with rational roots
@D D a term is created by humans, when too many people uses the “wrong” term then it is generally accepted and can be used
1 like@Chester Thank you for saying what most people should be realizing by now. You pretty much simplified what I've been trying to say throughout my whole time commenting here. Hard to get your point across when everyone would rather throw insults instead of trying to discuss their points maturely like decent humans should. Thank you.
0 likes@D D I mean, I only see a few people doing that, and since it's pretty much just people trying to think of the meanest, nastiest things they can call me rather than refute anything I believe with their own beliefs, there's no power or credibility behind it. Also notice how many likes in agreement OP has compared to you? It's because most others understand math and English and know what he meant. You and your people are blinded by rage and hatred because others don't agree with you. Good luck with that mentality in life.
0 likes@Vlinder007 Just saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I am anymore than saying I'm right proves I am. You still are saying things without really saying anything other than throwing bm. Why waste your time?
0 likes@TheCelestialFox ready everything carefully maybe you will get it then you ARE wrong but have the disposition of a esel
3 likes@Vlinder007 Maybe you should stick to trying to type English better before calling people names in German? I've read through your limited posts, since your still new to the convo, and you have only stated that two terms mentioned are different to which I said yes they are and explained how, but you have only said I'm wrong anyway even though we agreed on the same thing essentially (though since you don't know how to expand upon a claim, I can't be too sure if we agree based on the same definitions) and have since resorted to immature name calling.
1 like넌 독일어로 말하고 싶으면, 그럼 난 한국어로 할 게요. Just saying 🤷♀️
@TheCelestialFox not german just saying
2 likes@Vlinder007 How convenient for you then that esel means ass in German. Since you meant to write something else, that whole comment is pretty much nullified due to all the grammatical errors. Kind of ironic given the purpose of that message lol.
0 likesNo decimal numbers. root of 23 is 4.8
0 likes@Chester "square number is a number with rational roots"
3 likesI agree dude.
@TheCelestialFox Yeah, because will be bothered to open 121525 replies and scroll to the first reply to see my comment. Once you take a look at replies, nobody likes your comments and everyone insults you.
1 likeI am however gonna give it to you. You managed to troll everyone here.
@john smith Actually the root of 23 is 4.7958315233. Even if it was 4.8, 4.8 is a number with a decimal in it. The 0.8 is a decimal. And 4.8 squared is 23.04.
0 likes@D D Actually, if you noticed more people liked my comments than they did yours. You have next to no likes after your first comment, but several of mine (before we get too far down) have a lot of likes. And I stopped replying because, like I said, I was enjoying my weekend and life. Why feed the hate on a Saturday?
1 likeAlso, simply because you don't agree with me about something trivial like the addition of an identifier at the end of a term (because we clearly agree on the meaning of the words) doesn't mean anyone is trolling. You're welcome to try again 😊
the ending word doesn't really matter. that is just another topic in which you are wrong.
10 likesyou claim 15 is a square number. our discussion stops at that pretty much.
@TheCelestialFox I know. I'm saying the question didn't ask for square numbers whose roots are decimals. Which is why the answer to that question is 25.
2 likes@john smith No, that's what I and OP are saying. The question just asked for the addition of squared numbers which, due to the 2 numbers being added coming from just a square, could include numbers that are not whole. Numbers that have decimals in them. We both understand the implication was to square an integer and sum it with another squared integer to get one of the possible answers shown, we know that the answer is B, however we're saying HYPOTHETICALLY, because the question didn't specify the numbers had to be perfect squares being summed, that the answer TECHNICALLY, under the hypothetical, could've been any of those answers. And then D D wanted to make a big argument out of a hypothetical...
0 likes@D D I never said 15 was a square number. I said root 15 squared makes 15 which can be seen under that pretense as a squared number. I never said 15 was a square number period. You really don't read do you?
1 likeAlso, you were the one who wanted to make a big deal out of saying perfect square vs saying perfect square number and square vs square number. And by conventional English standards, and other languages whose linguistic rules follow, adding a descriptive word at the end of another word typically does not change the overall meaning.
@TheCelestialFox It literally says square numbers in the question on the video, not squareD numbers. You claim all of the answers are tehnically correct. Therefore, you are a moron.
9 likes@TheCelestialFox I know that is what you are saying, I'm saying what you guys are saying, that your hypothetical interpretation of the question, is a stretch. and even though "technically", yeah, you could do it the way the OP suggested, the guy being questioned wasn't even given a calculator to enable him to find the square root of, say, 23. You can do it without a calculator, i am aware of that, what I'm saying is, unless you're a mathletics top scorer, you're gonna need pen, paper, lots of paper, as finding a square root of a number is an arduous process, without one. And since he wasn't given a calculator, the likeliest interpretation of the question is the one that involves answers that are not decimals.
1 likeMaybe if this question was asked today, he could just pull out his smart phone and use the calculator on it, but this was 11 years ago, when Motorolla phones and Nokias were all the rage. And i'd still need lots of paper, even if I had a calculator. And lots of time.
@D D I'm explaining this one more time to your, then I'm going to ignore you because you're simply ignorant at this point and blind and are focusing more on being disrespectful than discussing things. It's no wonder why you constantly misinterpret everything I say. I'm almost convinced you know I'm right, but your ego won't let you concede.
0 likesA square number is the product of a non-integer value multiplied with itself. More clearly as the person we both agreed with defined, the product of a rational number which is a non-whole, fractional number, A decimal, being multiplied with itself. Therefore, you can interpret sum of square numbers as the sum of some arbitrary, rational values being squared to reach the other answers. Sum of two square numbers to get 16? You could use root 11 (3.316...) squared plus root 5 (2.236...) squared and you get 16. If you want to be clear that the square numbers must be integers, then the question could've instead said sum of two perfect square numbers. Then the only true answer would be 25. Yet, once again, we know through implication the question meant using the latter and not the former. This whole thing was a hypothetical, a technicality, a possibility, a scenario. And you're here getting pressed about an imaginary situation for weeks? Live your life!
@john smith But you don't need to know what the root of, I'll go with your number, 23 is in order to use it. You know that if you square the root of 23 you're left with 23 and if you squared the root of another number like say 26, you'd end up with 26 and once you add them you get the answer 49. The lady questioning him isn't expecting him to show his math, they didn't provide a calculator or pen and paper, but that's why even in typical fashion in math courses you save time and energy and write square roots that aren't perfect as square roots. Or you write fractions as fractions and not decimals if you can avoid doing so.
0 likesIs this a stretch? More than likely. But this was never meant to be a hypothetical that was to be taken so seriously. It was simply food for thought. Not thought provoking or philosophical. Just a small notice in the technicality of using Square number vs. Perfect square number. That's all.
@D D No irony, I've been living my life for weeks after this convo and just came back recently to discuss with more mature, respectful individuals. You're the one who's been spending their days and nights for that time responding to replies from other people over and over. If I was as invested as you, then it would be ironic. And keep calling me a troll like the broken record you are lol 🤦♀️🤷♀️
0 likes@TheCelestialFox that's what i thought. no reply to my first comment, but a reply to a second comment that is not relevant to the discussion.
8 likesSpending days and nights? Sure dude. Whatever makes your argument stronger. I just love that everyone pissed on you in this comment section and literally nobody agreed with you in comments.
Also, please reply to my first comment, where it is clear that, if you are really serious about this discussion, you are one big moron who is literally denying the official definition of something. Imagine how braindead you need to be to actually do that.
From when is root 15 a real number ? It’s an irrational number dude
0 likes@D D What are you even talking about? A lot of my replies from before I left the first time was spent arguing your first comment. That was the whole argument about the significance of adding the identifier of "number" after the terms prime square and square to make them prime square number and square number. To which the is no change to the meanings of either in doing so. To call a number a number in the title does as much as multiplying a number by 1.
0 likesI wrote the definitions of both terms multiple times saying that while the definitions make PSN and SN different from EACH OTHER, which the person we both agreed with not too long ago wrote pretty much the same definitions as me, adding number in the name doesn't change those definitions. That's been my point from day one with you. If you seriously think I haven't been trying to make points about your initial comment, you lose all credibility and validity at this point.
Check the likes for you vs. me for those comments in the beginning. I do have people who agree with me because they understand what I'm saying. The OP who I've been supporting all this time has over 1k likes to.
Outsmarting the presenter yh, I rate that.
0 likes@kiran v Look, have you ever had a math class where you have the root of a number and you square it to get the number without the root? Maybe you're doing it to both sides of an equation or something? And you can write the non perfect root of a number as a decimal. Easiest with a calculator, but doable. Besides you wouldn't need to know what the decimal is since you're adding the sum of two terms. So since squaring the root of one number is the number and squaring the root of another gets you any of the answers when summed, it doesn't matter what you square as long as you get to the answer. Never said root 15 was a real number btw. I've only been talking about whole numbers, integers, and rational numbers. To which I never said outright root 15 was any. I used it as an arbitrary example.
0 likes@Moska Did you mean to say rate or were you trying to say hate?
0 likesSorry if that's how my comments came off, I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck with the presenter, like I said before, this was supposed to be a fun, food for thought kind of thing. But certain people want to feel superior apparently. Can't have a nice discussion online 🤷♀️
yidingcao you’re technically right, but most people when talking about square numbers, they talk about whole numbers, not decimals. So I think it was pretty clear
0 likesLook, I’m not a math expert, at all. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they really count square roots of numbers that aren’t whole. (I really am sorry if I’m wrong please don’t start yelling at me)
0 likesTheCelestialFox look ! What I’m telling is that root of any number will be non ending non recurring decimal value so by that one should understand that the number is not reaching a definite value .so once we take its square it’s actually an approximate value. So root15 is an approximation of 3.87298346......... etc! Hope I’m clear now
0 likes@rlv Yes the question was clear. I was never refuting that the question was ambiguous. I was agreeing with OP that in a hypothetical world, because the question was asked in a way that did not explicitly say perfect squares only, you can use any square to get to any of those answers. That was all.
0 likesIf you want someone to yell at you, look for D D. He'll also hurl insults free of charge. Like I said, I'm open to discussion in a mature manner.
You mention that they don't expect people to use non-whole numbers. That's precisely my argument. It's implicit that you would use perfect roots, but technically speaking, in a hypothetical way, they just said squares, so any square would be fair game.
@kiran v I already understand that non perfect roots run forever typically. But you can round to the nearest nth term, and still get the rooted term essentially. Root 15 is 3.8729833462 just about, and squaring that gets you 14.9999999999.... which a lot of calculators will show as 15. The more decimal places you add, the more accurate your square number will be. And as discussed before, they will not expect you to know these non perfect roots nor will they provide a calculator, pencil, or paper to do work. They clearly don't care if and how you what terms to use. If you use a square root, they aren't going to be like "no you can't use that unless you know the root in decimal form". Math courses don't even typically do that unless a calculator is involved and you need to graph it. I think you and a lot of people are missing the fact that this is a hypothetical scenario. You're reading this like I'm trying to pertain this to what actually happened. Like I'm trying to say he could've chosen any answer and been right. Not in reality, but in a theoretical one, more than likely.
1 like@TheCelestialFox Your comments have no likes in the latter part of discussion. Are you fucking blind?
5 likesYou claim OP could be right, even hypothetically. No, he can't. Not even closely right.
You can't just add number to a mathematical term.
Your proposition is to add number to, for example, a square, so you could get square number. What you did is you made something that is already defined in mathematical world and english vocabulary, yet you would claim that square is equal to square number, because yeah, you just added a word "number" to the end of something that has completely other meaning.
A square is a square -> something you have been using instead of square number.
Add number after the square, you get square number that is completely different from just square.
Mathematics is a very precise and strict field of science. Someone who didn't do serious mathematics will never know and understand this.
I’m 13. I actually have to explain this to grown adults. Just to sum it up, square number and perfect square both mean the Same thing. They are the square of an integer, meaning that their square root is a whole number. Any decimal can be squared, however the result will not be a square number. The question clearly states that it is the sum of two square numbers, therefore the original statement is incorrect as square number and perfect square have the same meaning.
8 likesTeoretically shut up
0 likesLol this guy got scammed xD
0 likesya
0 likesSTOP ARGUING OVER MATH OH MY GOD YALL NEED JESUS
0 likesIntegers not perfect square numbers
0 likesIf a square number didn’t need to be what you defined as a “perfect square number” then like every number could be a square number soooooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 like@D D You are wrong because of your assumptions that Google search brings up correct definitions of complex subjects - which if you investigated further via the same Google search you would find that some authors indeed do use 'perfect square' distinctively from just 'square' - many things depend on context and agreed concensus so sometines there is not black and white definition as you would like to portray
1 like@Verdi
0 likesNow you are Trolling dear
I was going to say the same
0 likesint ans;
0 likes@D D wait what? I thought 16
0 likes16 is 4 and 4 is 2
They have to be smaller square numbers.
1 likeA square number is the awnser to a Whole Number when that whole number is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number or fraction or any other number other than a whole number.
1 like@Abdalla Ahmed No, As has already been pointed out several times I believe there is no such thing as a perfect square number. There is just a square number or a perfect square. In simple terms a square number (or perfect square) is the awnser to a WHOLE number that is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number. It must be a WHOLE number. In mathematics these things have very precise terms. You can certainly square any number. (multiply any number by itself) but unless that number is a WHOLE number then the product can't be classified as a Square number. Hope this has helped your understanding
1 likeVery good ikr
0 likesD D that hurt me reading his replies, lol wtf
0 likesAbdalla Ahmed dude, a “square number” is EXACTLY the same as a perfect square, any other number like 15 can technically be a number squared, but don’t fit the definition of Square number
0 likesCheydinal yes if you understand English it does, in your way, apparently the sum of 2 and 3 can equal 18, is that right? No
0 likesFilipe Miaoumiam he explained it 50 times, I think that’s enough to annoy anyobe
0 likesHow is root 15 a square no
0 likesFuck off
0 likesFirst go and learn what numbers sre?
1 like@Martin Jayaraj lol it isn't. I don't think the op realised a square number is the result of n * n. n being an interger. Basic maths don't really know what the fuss is about tbh. People upvote without thinking. Further more you can just look up a list of square numbers and see root 15 isn't there. Since any interger squared will give another integer.
5 likesThis questionis not for oxford's admission, so common its clear it was B
1 likeIt can only be b you idiots...
0 likes@D D dude I love u
1 likeGo on. My popcorn isnt over yet
1 likeD D dude, I see your frustration and pain. As a maths student, it pains me to see how so many people don't understand what square number means, yet they think they do.
8 likesYou know you are right, and I (or anyone who is actually able at maths) will know you are right, and others won't. No matter how hard you try to teach them, they won't understand. That's just how selfish people are. So you don't have to try anymore. You worked hard enough my friend. It's so sooo frustrating ik
D D imagine arguing with a flat earther. They are definitely wrong but you won't be able to convince them, so there's no point arguing with them.
6 likesIt's similar here. People are wrong, but you won't be able to change them. So I think it's best just to remain silent
Einstein- "BruH"
0 likes@D D fuck off nerd it doesn't matter if people add an extra word nobody gives a shit how smart you think you are
1 likeI'm crying this sounds like a class debate, this comment section is filled with it
2 likesGrab the popcorn even though it might be over
1853 likers dont know the definition of a square number, this is very sad. 25 is the only correct answer here!
0 likes@TheCelestialFox according to your logic every number is a square number. I thaught you have to think logical as an computer systems engineer?! I was probably wrong in that case lol
2 likes@Christian Schroeder Shows what you know about any form of mathematics that deals with multiples lol. And English for that matter. How many times must a person include the words HYPOTHETICAL and THEORETICAL, sometimes in caps, for you to understand that OP and I are talking about a possibility? Technically speaking yes, every number is a square of some other number, whether it be whole or not. HOWEVER, not every square number is a PERFECT square number. You can find the square root of practically any number you can think of big or small, whole, fractional, or decimal. As I have stated multiple times (I suppose you have no reading comprehension to see that) every perfect square number is a square number, but not every square number is a perfect square number. It's like saying all golden retrievers are dogs, but not all dogs are golden retrievers (to dumb ot down for you, you're welcome). 16 is a perfect square number of 4. It's a square number and a perfect square number. An arbitrary value like 1.597 is a square number of 1.2637246536. It's not perfect, but it's a square number nonetheless. You can square any number and get another number that is its square number. Having had to do an abundance of math courses, one of which being discrete math, with a lot of proofing, this is basic knowledge. Even the square of 0 is 0. It's not hard to comprehend.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox 1,597 is the square of 1,2637246536, its is not called the square number of 1,2637246536, that is the problem. I know what you mean but this question (which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?) is clearly defined. The term or the concept (i dont know the right word because english is not my mother languege) "square number" is also clearly defined. You are right when you say technically every number is the square of some other number. But not all of them are a square number, that is the point.
0 likesThis entire argument is stupid. Who cares if a square number means the product of an integer being multiplied by itself? It doesnt matter that the word is used incorrectly, because everybody understands the meaning. Nitpicking the fact that the word was used correctly is pointless, especially considering this is the damn YouTube comments section, not a university class, not a professional setting at all.
0 likes@Christian Schroeder Okay, wow, now you've taken this argument nearly back to the top about semantics concerning the addition of a descriptive word such as number.
0 likesAgain, a square number and a square are the same thing. They are products (numbers) of a number that is multiplied with itself. Likewise a perfect square and a perfect square number are the same thing. They are products of a whole, rational number multiplied with itself. To say that "a is the square of b, but a is not the square number of b" is completely contradictory. That's like saying "16 is the perfect square of 4, but it's not the perfect square number of 4". You roll never get another value outside of 16 when squaring 4. The value you get when you square 1.2637246536 is only 1.597. You will not get another value. 1.597 is the square number to 1.2637246536. It's what you get when you square it and it is a number. When you square any number, you get a number in the output. It's the square number you get from the squared number. Square and square number are synonymous. Saying number at the end does not change the definition. It's like saying tabby and tabby cat. They are the same thing, a cat. To say cat at the end doesn't change that.
Finally, as I have also stated countless times in my time in this thread as well, the question is understood by everyone. We all get the context and know that B is the only correct solution. What OP and I are saying is that IN A HYPOTHETICAL, PROBABLE, THEORETICAL, MADE UP, ALTERNATE REALITY, because the question was presented in a way that did not EXPLICITLY state "using perfect squares", and because any number on this God forsaken planet can be squared, you can THEORETICALLY, HYPOTHETICALLY, PROBABLY reach any one of those 4 answers. Why is that so hard for people to read? It's like people are cherry picking words and phrases and are acting like I'm talking about this reality. 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦♂️🤦♀️
@TheCelestialFox there are no perfect square numbers. Square numbers and perfect squares are the same thing. 2,25 is the square of 1,5 but its not a square number! 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers. Please check the definition of square numbers and you will see that the question is 100% explicit.
2 likes@Christian Schroeder Please check the definition of a perfect square. You will find that it is the product of rational number, an integer, multiplied with itself. This means whole numbers larger than 0, ie. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., n where n is a rational value. Yes 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers, but they are also perfect square numbers. You multiplied whole, rational, integers to get those values. You didn't square 2.9836 or 3.2856 to get 9, you squared 3. Perfect squares exist and are square numbers. I've said this countless times if you bothered to read: Every perfect square number is a square number, but not every square number is a perfect square number. Please see my example regarding 1.597. Also, please read the full thread and use Google. These terms have been defined by multiple people and official math websites such as wolfram and even Google.
1 likeAlso, for the millionth time but you want to cherry pick, I never said the question wasn't clear. It was, we all know what it's asking for and know factually that the answer is B. This was a HYPOTHETICAL, THEORETICAL, PROBABLE SCENARIO. I won't explain it again, do yourself a service and read.
i feel like you’re missing the point of what a square number is. A square number is the same as a perfect square. You are confusing square number with squared number (aka number that is squared, or number to the power of 2). A square number is a number with a whole number root, while a squared number is any number that has been squared.
4 likesPS I’m ready to get roasted for having an opinion
@gilito345 Are you slow, or do you just not like to read? All you have to do is Google "perfect square vs square" and you get the same results that I and other people here have already explained.
1 likeA perfect square is a square, but a square is not always perfect. A square is only perfect when the product you get comes from an integer being squared. For example 100 is a perfect square of 10, 49 is a perfect square of 7. They are squares and they are perfect squares. However you can't say 17 or 23 are perfect squares. They are squares of some irrational value, but not of an integer. The difference between a square and perfect square is the fact that a perfect square is the product of squaring a whole, rational, integer whereas a square is the product of integers and the product of irrational numbers being squared. They are not one in the same, they are not always mutually inclusive, that's why we have separate names for them, I don't know how much clearer I can be on this matter after having explained it so many times.
I have also already explained that a square number is the product of squaring a number whereas the squared number is the number you're multiplying with itself to get the product. If you're not going to read the things I've already stated in this to understand fully what I've said, your opinion on my views is pretty invalidated.
TheCelestialFox you changed the subject I never said anything about squares I was talking about square numbers square numbers by definition are the same as perfect squares. I agree not all squares are perfect as you said but squares are different than square numbers
3 likes@gilito345 I have been on topic this whole time. You're kind of making things up it seems. It's been discussed countless times what a square number is vs a square (they are the same thing, putting number at the end doesn't change a thing, it's a descriptive word like saying pitbull dog vs pitbull). Likewise a perfect square number means the same thing as a perfect square. We've already covered a perfect square vs a square, and a square number vs a squared number. Please, go back to the very beginning and just read everything I've said, you're making me repeat myself more than I'd like to. Square numbers are not the exact same thing as perfect square numbers. Perfect square numbers are within the scope of square numbers, but square numbers also includes non-perfect squares. How many times are you going to make me say this? Just Google "perfect square vs square".
0 likesTheCelestialFox whatever dude idc that much I’ve found evidence on google both for your argument and against it, I can see both sides of the argument I just wanted to talk about what I thought based on how I was taught, you don’t have to be a prick about it
1 likeD D You must be fun at parties
0 likesI bet you're fun at parties
0 likesCan you do my math homework?
0 likes@ D D.. U shud have some etiquettes on how to deal with people, the way u use such abusive language shows how much educated u r!! Go back and learn some etiquettes first and then come back for discussing on maths
1 likeWissale Ch.. Do you call it patience? Really!!! He is using such abusive language n he is such a short tempered guy who is not interested in discussion but in just proving jis point right, I think u need to Google the definition of patience
1 likeD D... Don't u have some work? Go n get some good job shut up now
1 likeJazy shut up
1 likeFilipe Miaoumiam.. Haha buddy that's correct!
1 likeUgandan Knuckles hahhaha.. That's correct buddy n I think D D was a clown in this whole conversation
1 like@ D D.. How does it feel when the whole comment section and the comment readers think that you are a jobless, brainless person .. Who has thissss much of free time to argue with people n prove his point right, u r the most dumb person I have ever seen
1 likeVlinder007 just shut the fuck up!
1 likeTheCelestialFox yeah .. D D is such a dumb person...
1 likeVlinder007 you moron ... Did you even put a single logical comment in the whole discussion, please go n get some knowledge n then come back, u idiot
1 likeD D.. Actually everyone dislikes you n yours nonsense comments! N everyone is insulting you, not Celestial fox, please.. For the sake of god, please shut up now.. U r too much arrogant n boring
1 likeD D so just stop now.. U just spread lots of hate..n this is what u knw.. Go to hell..everyone is not as free as you are! Go to hell..
1 likeTheCelestialFox hey buddy I think you are intelligent enough to leave this argument now... Let this D D be arrogant and fool, his biggest insult is in not replying to him n let him throw his comments alone
1 likeD D you are a huge dick
1 likeSorry but your an idiot. Those are squared numbers not square numbers.
0 likesCONGRATS ON REACHING THE FINISH LINE!!
4 likesThousand of comments which can be summed up to "squared numbers are not square number".
Nope
0 likes@D D so how many no. are there between 1-10?
0 likesTop 10 anime rivalry
0 likes😂 are u nuts
0 likesIm sure they took that into account but why in the hell would using 1^2 or the root of a square make logical sense?
0 likesallright einstien chill out mate
2 likesD D I’m with you on this one D D
0 likesIt's 25 u asshole
0 likesThen it would be a radical
0 likesThe question was on about integers, smartass.
0 likes@selkie 🦭 pfft no it was not
0 likes@UltimateNinja3x Yeah, it was. When you say "numbers", most would think of a integer. Why would they be on about squared decimal numbers??
0 likesThis little debate here made my math weaker
1 like@TheCelestialFox lol you're an idiot
1 likeyidingcao HARVARD WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION
0 likesno. u r wrong
0 likesAmbiguation of terms is interesting.
0 likes— But, I think that Producers can easily make the argument that...
(1) SINCE every single one of “[the] square numbers” provided as multiple choice answers are “perfect squares...”
(2) it intuitively follows that the two “square numbers” - which add together to make the “square number” in your answer - are also “perfect squares” as well.
More practically, they probably weren’t super precise with the wording of the question because they didn’t want to lower the font size or make the text box bigger. The risk was betting on whether or not a contestant, who knows there’s only 1 answer, would counterintuitively interpret the question in a way that yields 4.
Jussayin’.
(Also: sorry, D D - Postmodernism is soooo easy to fall into. Lol.)
Zaki Qasim My view on this is that: if a number IS (or “happens to be ”) the sum of two numbers, then it means that exactly two numbers add together to make that number.
1 likeThis is mainly because your argument seems to assume that the question signifies that the number is at least the sum of two numbers.
But, without “at least” written in the question, an implied “only” seems to make perfect intuitive sense: I mean, when a doctor says that “their patient IS (or “happens to be “) 5 feet tall,” it makes sense to think that they’re only 5 feet tall... not that they’re at least 5 feet tall.
But, of course, in both situations, you could ask the inquirer. The doctor will easily say “only x feet tall” and the host will easily say “only x numbers” - especially since there IS 1 answer to the question.
— Not at least 1 answer, mind you; but, only 1 answer.
The number has to be an integer to form a square number.
1 likeThis is besides the point, but i thought it was a common thing to use 3^2+4^2=5^2 to explain pythagoras' theorem..
Nerd
0 likesHere’s a summary for everyone who was lazy to read all this...
8 likesPerfect Square = Square Number = 1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,... and so on
That’s the definition
This means the OP was incorrect, so DD replied with that definition to prove that the OP was incorrect.
Later TheCelestialFox came in to try to prove DD wrong.
DD tried to explain why he was correct. But TheCelestialFox came back and tried to prove DD wrong again, and also insulted him.
Then the argument heated up, two of them proving their points and sometimes insulting each other.
That’s pretty much it.
So to sum it up, TheCelestialFox lost this argument while DD won.
Sorry for assuming that everyone was male lol
no it doesn't
0 likes@TheCelestialFox PHD in Mathematics here --> this is true. 5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9
1 likeNow, please, check out the definition of SQUARE NUMBER, and not Perfect Square. You'll find that, at least in my country, a SQUARE NUMBER is a number multiplied by itself, but a Perfect Square (number) is, actually, an INTEGER multiplied by itself. But they are not the same things. If I'm wrong, as I could be, please don't send me definitions, which I've already found, but explain with civil words what's the problem with what I've found AND why.
0 likesThanks.
true, but if you look it this way every number is a number square and at the same time a sum of two smaller number squares, so the question makes no sence.
1 likefucking nerd
0 likes@Alson Wong Ha. This is also quite true.
0 likes— Although I agree, I'm still not sure if it's a "common thing."
yidingcao Asia an
0 likesthats not what a square number is
0 likes@D D Google literally says for perfect square: square of a rational number. Someone does not know math.
0 likesHOLY. SH*T.
1 likeGuys. This is not hard. The man just said that all the answers are technically correct. There is no need for 300+ comments on perfect squares and square numbers.
All you need to know is: A square number is a perfect square. Any number can be squared. Not all numbers are square numbers.
ie: I can square 3.14159265358979323846264338 and get a result, but it’s not a “square number”
It’s like how a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.
Good? Good. The question was crap.
Nerd
0 likesThe Real Snowy Thanks, you’re right. A square number = perfect square. It was poor research on my part. I’ve edited the answer.
1 likeIn that regard, I still don’t understand what the whole argument was on. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the definition??
Because by definition, every number is a square. Every number is some other number multiplied by itself. But a square number in particular has integer roots, or an “exact” root. So... what’s the dilemma?
The Real Snowy lmao same. I’m on my phone and it takes a good minute of scrolling just to see the newest answers. Goodnight, I guess!
0 likesThe Real Snowy Okay, since you clearly didn't bother to read my comments in order to see how I have explained how a square number and a perfect square number are different (hence why they even have two differentiating names), I'll explain it one more time step by step:
1 likePerfect Square Number: A number that results from multiplying an integer (integer being defined as a whole, rational number), with itself. Examples of this include 1 * 1 = 1, 2 * 2 = 4, 15 * 15 = 225, etc.
Square Number: encompasses a perfect square number, but also includes any other number resulting from multiplying an irrational, fractional, or otherwise decimal number with itself. This includes the aforementioned examples, but also things such as (22/13) * (22/13) = 2.8639, sqrt(27) *sqrt(27) = 27, 1.25 *1.25 = 1.5625, etc.
The difference between a square number and a perfect square number is essentially that a perfect square number can only have squared numbers (squared numbers defined as the numbers being multiplied) that are whole numbers ONLY. Square numbers however can have squared numbers that can be anything from 0 to infinity. A perfect square number is a specific type of square number.
If you want to call a perfect square number a square number, go ahead, because a perfect square number is a square number. However a square number is not a perfect square number. I've given the example with animal breeds. A tabby cat is a cat, but not all cats are tabbies. It's a one way street. You can call a perfect square number a square number (it's in the name even), but you can't call a square number a perfect square number because not every square number is perfect (ie not every square number is the product of an integer being multiplied with itself). They are not synonymous, they are not mutually inclusive. It's like inheritance in programming. Computer would be the parent class, and Asus would be the child class because it is a type of computer. It inherits things that a computer can do, but the computer doesn't inherit Asus functionality. It's one way only.
I hope this finally clears up the confusion. Also, I have a lot of people liking my comments and agreeing because they understand perfectly what it is I'm saying. According to what I've read in the thread a lot of people are bashing D D for his claims (not that I condone the bashing).
Omg what language are you guys talking about 😐😐
0 likesA square number is mathematically understood as a perfect square.
1 likeNot really. Here's a definition of a square number from wikipedia: "In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."
0 likesUgh there’s always that one guy....
0 likesThe Real Snowy Okay, so if you read every one of my comments as you claim, first of all thank you for taking the time in this mess of a thread, you don't understand what it is I'm trying to say at all. In the dog breed example, the border collie would be the perfect square, not the square. Because the border collie is a certain type of dog. Likewise, a perfect square is a certain type of square.
0 likesIf you square 4, 4 * 4, you get 16. 16 is the square number of the squared number 4. It is also the perfect square number to the squared number 4. However if you square 1.25, 1.25 * 1.25, you get 1.5625. This is a square number. The square number 1.5625 is the square number to the squared number 1.25. But you wouldn't call it a perfect square number. Why? Because the squared number is not an integer. The squared number 1.25 is not a whole number.
That's the distinction I'm trying to make. You can call a perfect square number simply a square number, it is. You can call a border collie dog a dog, it is. You can't call every square number perfect, because they are not all perfect. You can't call every dog a border collie dog, because they are not all border collie dogs.
You seem to also have misunderstood my query as well. Someone was telling me that is wrong to assume that every number is a square number. So I was saying that if you squared a number to get to whatever number you were thinking of, would that not constitute it being a square number? I'll type a number completely at random: 375.3847492
This is a square number. If I go into a calculator and use the square root function I will get a result. What do I get? I get 19.3748483659. This is clearly not a perfect square. Neither the square nor squared numbers are integer values. However, you can still call this a square. 375.3847492is still a square number from the squared number 19.3748483659. My query was if you don't call it a square, what would you call it? Because if, according to you, a square and a perfect square are one and the same, this wouldn't count as being a square because it would have to be whole numbers only.
"Every number is a square, but it is only a 'perfect square' if its square root is an integer. For example the root of 2 is not a perfect square it is an irrational number 1.4142... but the square root of 4 is 2 hence perfect square."
That's what you get when you look up "perfect square vs square".
The Real Snowy Okay, and now I'm telling you, YOU'RE wrong. What you just said is the definition of a perfect square number. A perfect square number is when the result is an integer from another integer being multiplied with itself. 2 * 2 = 4. That's a square number yes, but more specifically it's also a perfect square. 1.25 * 1.25 = 1.5625. That's a square number yes, but more specifically it is NOT a perfect square number because neither the square nor the squared numbers are integers. That's the difference between the perfect square number and the square number. Perfect squares are EXCLUSIVELY integers from integers. A square number is any number from another number, INCLUDING integers, but more specifically and importantly from irrational, fractional, and decimal numbers (since of course there are more of those kinds of numbers than integers so you'll deal with those a lot more in real world situations). So I raise the question to you. Since you're not calling 1.5625 a square number (even though we know the square root is 1.25, we know 1.25 is the number you square to get 1.5625) what do you call it then? What are you doing to 1.25 to get to 1.5625 if you're not squaring it apparently? Squaring a number is defined as multiplying the number with itself to get a square number which is defined as the product of the aforementioned multiplication.
0 likesThe Real Snowy I have already said they are not synonymous. I don't know how to make this any more simplistic to understand than I already have. All I can tell you is that square number encompasses a perfect square number, but is not itself a perfect square number. A perfect square number by definition is a square number, but it is a SPECIAL TYPE of square number limited to only integer values.
0 likesThe Real Snowy And since you misinterpret it, I have to stay on dog breeds. "The point I was trying to make is that NEITHER of them are parent classes or sub classes as they both mean the same thing." By that statement are you trying to say that border collie and dog are synonymous terms. I can look at a husky and go "look at that border collie over there!" or tell the owner "You have a nice border collie here!" and they would thank me without telling me "This is actually a husky... 😳"? No! The point of the analogy was to say that dog breeds are a specific kind of dog. You can call each breed a dog, but you can't call just any canine by any breed name.
0 likesLet's say you have a bike. It's a mountain bike. That distinction makes it certain type of bike. You see someone else with a beach cruiser bike. Another type of bike. You wouldn't call their bike a mountain bike or your own bike a beach cruiser. You can call them both simply bikes though. You wouldn't go into a bike shop, ask for a mountain bike, and expect to get a beach cruiser. Likewise, a perfect square number is a type of square number. You can call it a square number, but you can't call every square number perfect.
The Real Snowy As any educator would do, I discredit your use of arbitrary website definitions, not only because you sourced Wikipedia of all places, but because anyone can include only data that supports their argument rather than data that has supporting claims and has disproving claims. In layman's terms, you're biased, and using sources that can be manipulated or are otherwise untrustworthy. Sorry about it 🤷♀️ Also, it's not like you bothered to read and answer my question I raised to you, so I'd say we're even.
0 likesThe Real Snowy I'm going to leave now, I more than likely won't respond anymore. This argument was pointless a month ago and you're like the 3rd or 4th person I've tried to explain this simple concept of hierarchy in mathematics to. I have better things to do with my Sunday. I'm moving in with my boyfriend this month, I'm studying for a coding assessment and technical interview for a job with Amazon, I've wasted enough time and energy responding to different people about the same things over and over.
0 likesThis is not me conceding, this is not me running away, this is me doing what I did the first time: living my life. Have a weekend sir!
16 isn’t
0 likesThe Real Snowy I said the same thing about you, which is why I'm removing myself from this convo. Funny, we agree on something finally. But as someone who has 2 offers from General Dynamics and an offer from Amazon, I truly think my time can be spent on better things than trying to educate someone so simple. Again, have a nice day, don't @ me again.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox You know, I could email this discussion to Amazon and General Dynamics, and just try to guess if they are going to give you a job :D
2 likesThe Real Snowy You are like a nicer version of me. I don't like that.
0 likes@D D Shows what you know about either company. As if they're going to give or deny a job in software development over something as simple as this (which they would undoubtedly agree with me on as apparently only people who take math classes higher than trig understand this basic concept). Its software development, as in coding. My coding logic and design is all that matters. Try again though please, great talking with you 😂👍
0 likes@TheCelestialFox Wow, you just understood my comment seriously. That just shows that you haven't changed this past month - you are still a moron.
0 likesEdit: even more people pissing on you since my last comment. It really is so sad.
@D D Lol the fact that you think just because I responded to you makes me take you seriously is hilarious 😂 I haven't taken you seriously since I first stopped responding to you. Also, I've seen a lot more responses coming at you than at me, but believe what you want 🤷♀️
0 likesYou're expecting a complete revamp of a person's character in less than 30 days? That's what's sad here lol. Not as sad as the way you address people behind a screen in a discussion, but nearly as low. Have a great week! 😉😜
The Real Snowy Well, guess what. I tried the nice way for the first five comments, but didn't really have the patience afterwards.
0 likesAfter all, we shouldn't get mad about one person not understanding something (even though it still annoys me because this is not a complicated topic).
After all, this is a youtube section, not a rational, live discussion. People tend to not read everything you write, and just stick with their own.
For example, I asked him several times to respond to some of my comments precisely, and he avoided that (pretty sure he did it on purpose, but then again, there is a possibility he just didn't read those). But wcyd, if I explained the same thing 20 times already, and if 20 other people explained the very same thing, and if there isn't literally anyone backing up his claim, then he should really understand in the end that he is just wrong.
Also, him being a troll is still not an excluded option.
wow yall argued this concept for over a month and consistently. I gave up reading after halfway and just started scrolling to the end laughing. BTW D D is right what the other guy is arguing is essentially the fragmented math that your teacher teaches in middle school so you dont go delving in too deep and getting confused. A square number and a number that can be squared are completely different things. Lol keep arguing made my day just seeing this persistence.
2 likesWeird flex but ok
0 likesyidingcao it’s basically only a question that explains what the Pythagorean’s thereom is
0 likes@TheCelestialFox your wrong bro there's only square numbers or perfect square. Perfect square number it's not a thing.
2 likes@Joey wheeler Wow, I feel bad sorry for you. I'm not even going to bother explaining these concepts again. You somehow have never heard of a perfect square but pretty much everyone else here has, even if we all are understanding it differently. All I have to say is you're wrong and leave it at that.
0 likesNo one @ me anymore. After this comment by Jose, I have lost all hope that you people will ever understand this concept. You'd doubt a discrete math professor even if they showed you the proofing for it. Peace!
@D D You are such a kid.
0 likesI like ".... and the list goes on" part. The list doesn't stop. So every every real number is a square number. And every square no is a real no. I can't wait to shout it to the world.
0 likesJose Cuevas No worries. Google has got our back.
0 likesEver heard of natural numbers smartass?
0 likes@TheCelestialFox Ofc everything can be squared. But that does not make every number a square number. A square number is the result of n*n where n is a integer. √26 is not an integer, so 26 is not a square number. I don´t know why you all refuse to believe D D. It is a fucking definition. The question was perfectly fine. Even 5 graders should know the answer.
3 likesHoly crap. I have a test tomorrow and i just wanna be happy by watching this vid from 11 years ago. Then I saw this fucking chain and my brain got destroyed. Looks like i won't be passing the exam. Thanks guys.
0 likes@bowlchamps37 1) If you knew how to read, you'd know I said don't @ me, which means don't respond to me anymore I'm completely done with you people.
0 likes2) What you have defined is a perfect square which, again, is a certain type of square. Also, if you say you can square anything and everything, you can't deny that everything is a square of something else. Will it always be perfect? No! Again, certain numbers will be perfect squares on top of being squares, most other numbers will be squares only, not perfect.
3)I have stated multiple times that I never said the question was ambiguous to where it can't be understood. I said everyone already knows that the question IMPLIED the use of a perfect square. That's how we get to the one definitive answer of B. However, what was presented by OP was, again please use reading comprehension to understand this, a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. This means that in a pretend world, what if they needed to be more explicit and say perfect square to use integers, but still said square to you could use any arbitrary value? In that situation any answer is fair game.
If you want to ignorantly sit there and believe that square and perfect square are completely proportional even though a perfect square is a square all the time, but a square is NOT a perfect square all the time, that's no longer my business. DO NOT @ ME AGAIN PLEASE! Thank you!
D D
0 likesD D i wish my englich would be much better or you could speak german 😂 The problem is so simple but i try to say. You have studied math which means your main topic was to use difinitions to prove something . By the way that is the right way 😂
0 likesThe other guy is some IT guy who isnt bad at math but never learnd the right way to prove something . So each of you is right by his own understanding but you are right by terms of the way to do math. He is right that every number is the the square of two other numbers but it seems he doesnt know that „square number“ used as a mathematical therm with definition isnt the same as „square number“ used as an common word . He isnt dumb or something but he hasnt had the same mathematical edjucation as we had . Btw i studied physics which means i had to take the basic math classes which were brain fuck enough😂 but i know there is a huge difference between math as math and math to use in physics/IT/ electronics ect
TheCelestialFox A random comment in Japanese from a history teacher and musician from Brazil: 君チンコが好きですね. I have read all 360 and so comments and even though my English is nearly perfect, my Math is only above average. Have a good day, and never forget this thread!
0 likesD D You are a nerd .
0 likes@TheCelestialFox the term "perfect square number" dosen't exist in English. There are square number and perfect square that are synonimous, after there are only squares. 5 is the square of √5 and not the square number of √5. The problem in this topic is not the matematics, but the English. Please, stop thinking, i know you know how to do a square, the problem is that you are passing for right a wrong term.
2 likesI'm Italian and in Italy exist only the term "quadrato perfetto" that is like to "perfect square" the term "quadrato perfetto numero" dosn't have sense, and is the corrispettive of "perfect square number" in italian 5 is the "quadrato" of √5 and not the "numero quadrato" of √5 because the term "square "("quadrato" in italian) it means itself a number and dosen't need the term number after itself.
So the problem is not the math, but the language.
@D D 1+1=3 is that right? Yes or no?
0 likes@Mence Apparently @ doesn't exist either. 🙄 Maybe you should stick to the Italian language which, by the way, you can't make comparisons on how Italians use their native tongue to how Americans use American English. You people (I don't mean Italians, I mean commenters) consistently make me repeat myself. Adding number after any of these terms perfect square or square does NOT change the meaning of the words anymore than saying tabby cat doesn't change the fact that a tabby is a cat. Yes, 5 is the square when you square the root of 5, but since root 5 is not an integer or whole number, it's not a perfect square. I'm only going to say this one more time: A perfect square number is a certain type of square number, don't @ me again, and maybe you should stop thinking in English and stick to Italian. Thank you, goodbye.
0 likesThe Real Snowy according to celestialfox I came up with point which I agree and y'all dont understand is
0 likesEVERY NUMBER HAS A SQUARE (it could be any from 0-- +infinity)BUT EVERY SQUARE ISNT PERFECT. like square of any decimal is a square but isnt perfect square. Perfect squares are of whole numbers
@TheCelestialFox oh my god . chill you are right just calm down ,relax and enjoy your life . have a great coming weekend and STOP REPLYING !
0 likesTHIS DISCUSSION IS OVER.
@Muhammad Junaid It very well would be over if people would stop @ing me like you just did. Calm down? Who said I was mad or upset? I admit to being a little annoyed that I keep trying to exit the convo only to have someone new @ me like you just did. You're the one who seems upset right now and needs to calm down. I keep trying to leave and live my life like the first time, and if people stop clogging my notifs with this long dead discussion, I could. Thank you for understand how squares and perfect squares work though. Everyone stop @ing me please! Have a good holiday, even you D D
1 likeHi. I was wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between a square root and a perfect square root. 😃
0 likesThere’s always that one person that over complicates basic things... 😂
1 likeOh do I love math arguments
0 likesLmao OK Einstein
0 likes@carlito 123 actually they aren't''t aren't arguing about maths. They are arguing the language and the terms defined in Maths
0 likes@Animes Lovers United i am assuming all of the numbers which will be infinity. If its only integers then 10.
0 likesAnd this is why I hate all languages. Specifically the definitions of simple words turn into long debated arguments.
0 likes@D D he's an asian if he makes up an answer its right
0 likes1 is not a square number
0 likes@Kubahognow I am going to guess that someone somewhere is going to say that √1=1 and stuff like that
0 likesThere are square numbers and then there are surds...think you need to relearn math.
0 likesThere’s no such thing as perfect square numbers. There’s perfect square or square numbers, which are numbers that can literally form a square taking every single unit as a point. These numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...
0 likesAlright so you guys can get your heads out of your ass I’m going to list off a bunch of perfect squares and squares spot the difference
0 likesPerfect Squares:1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100
Squares:2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15 etc
A perfect square is the square of a whole number, under certain circumstances a square can be a perfect if the the number being squared is a whole number. If the number is not a whole number it is simply a square.
yidingcao sorry if this has already been stated, I only read the first ~30 comments before it turned too cancerous.
0 likesTechnically, the question is ambiguous because he didn’t specify which type of number he is looking for.
If instead the question read “which of these square integers happens to be the sum of two smaller square integers”, the only possible answer is B.
The question could of also read “which natural number happens to be the sum of two smaller natural numbers”, the ambiguity would be lost.
Better yet, if the question just said which of these perfect squares also happens to be.....bla, the ambiguity would once again be lost.
But since that was not the case, one could consider the set of real and/or complex numbers for all answers to be correct.
My guess is they used that type of language because most people wouldn’t think that deeply about it and would just assume the use of natural numbers or integers.
?!?!?!??!?!?
0 likesOmg you are smart
0 likesTheCelestialFox I like apples, square apples
0 likesYou need to LEARN what "SQUARE NUMBERS" are. Look up the DEFINITION!
0 likeswrong. square numbers must be squares of integers. your term "perfect square number" does not exist and you just made it up.
0 likes@D D you are correct. people just want to sound smartass and say "ohhh the question is wrong lol"
1 likeyeah dumb question
0 likesTheCelestialFox - You are simply wrong. Your main argument boils down to be that the phrase "square number" cannot mean something different from using the word "square" as a modifier for the word "number". But this is incorrect.
2 likesThe German Shepherd example is a perfect example. Individually, the word "German" can refer to a citizen of Germany, and the word "Shepherd" can refer to someone who takes care of sheep. If we put these two meanings together, "German Shepherd" refers to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep. But the phrase "German Shepherd" need not refer to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep; it most frequently refers to a breed of dog.
And that's the issue that you keep having. You keep arguing that the phrase "square number" cannot possibly have its own meaning as a phrase apart from combining the definitions of "square" and "number" individually. As with the "German Shepherd" example, this is simply wrong. The phrase "square number" refers to the "square of an integer." People have provided you with plenty of references of this. You kept ignoring these references and then stating your own opinion about what the phrase means. You're essentially arguing with the dictionary about the meaning of a word.
There's not much more to say. You are denying basic facts about mathematical terminology.
Nope, 15 will never be a square number until it is defined as one, and that's never gonna happen.
0 likesSquare numbers are 1,4,9,16,25,...
Some might include 0, but that doesn't help you either.
@Salti Dawg how is he wrong?
0 likes@TheCelestialFox you are just causing confusion by saying a square (in the context of numbers) is different to a square number.
0 likesWhen you say 17 is a square, it's ridiculous cause we take square as meaning square number.
I know 17 is the square of sqrt17, but it's really unpractical to go round saying 17 is a square.
@D D you are right, they are the same thing.
0 likesI would never call 17 a square as it could be interpreted as a square number
@TheCelestialFox you have the terms:
0 likesSquare
Square number
Perfect square
Perfect square number
You're happy to omit "number" from perfect square number, but then you aren't happy to omit "number" from square number.
It's simple really, just take those 4 terms to mean square numbers, so 17 is not a square, no confusion now.
@Colin Java 1) You clear as day don't understand the differences between a perfect square and perfect square number vs. a square and square number. All of which I gave definitions for that you didn't see, forgot about, or chose to cherry pick and ignore. I'm not repeating it. Play Where's Waldo and find it since you're this invested.
0 likes2) Your claim that 15 is not a square number is absolutely false. It is 100% a square number of the decimal form of its root (√15 or 3.8729833462). Because this root is not a whole, rational number, it's NOT a PERFECT root which means 15 is not a PERFECT square. The other numbers you listed: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are all squares AND perfect squares because their roots are whole, rational numbers. Every number has a square value. If you type in a calculator ANY arbitrary value and square it or square root it, you WILL receive a numeric value. This is why EVERY number is a square. HOWEVER, the only numbers that are considered a PERFECT square are the ones that result from a whole, rational number (meaning no fractions/decimals) being multiplied with itself. That's the distinction, use, and purpose of saying PERFECT square vs simply saying SQUARE. To add the term "number" at the end to make these terms perfect square NUMBER and square NUMBER is only a redundancy because of course these values are numbers. It's like asking on a math test "Is this irrational?" vs. "Is this an irrational number?"
3) Leave this god forsaken comment thread the hell alone. This whole thing is well over a year old. You're only trying to start an old fight anew and no once needs the headache. Drop it.
@زکی قاسم no, cause it says TWO smaller square numbers, but nice try
2 likes@TheCelestialFox The issue is that you're giving your personal definition of the phrase "square number" and ignoring the well-established definition of "square number" that Euclid gave (Elements book VII, definition 18) and has been consistently used by mathematicians for the past 2000 years (there is no reason to expand the phrase's meaning to a more general concept of "number").
0 likesOn a quiz show, terminology has meaning. You can't just make up your own meaning to the terminology, otherwise you could make the case that every answer is right to every question (just make up your own meaning for what the question means!).
@MuffinsAPlenty Exactly, his definition makes no sense cause every number is a square number if 15 is a square number.
3 likesYou can say 15 is the square OF A number (sqrt 15), but its not a square number.
Colin Java - Yeah, and the same thing goes for a lot of terminology that Euclid defined: multiple, even number, odd number, prime number, composite number, square number, and perfect number. If we tried to expand their definitions to the set of all real or complex numbers, these would all be meaningless terminology, since in most cases, every number would satisfy the definition or no number would satisfy the definition.
0 likesNo number would be a prime number since every number would be divisible by every (nonzero) number. 3 would be an "even number" since 3 can be divided by 2. Maybe TheCelestialFox would say that 3 is an even number, but not a perfect even number.
This sort of thing happens all the time in mathematics: there are adjectives that can be defined algebraically in very abstract settings. For example, you can define the notion of "prime" element in any commutative semi-ring. You can define the notion of "algebraic element" in any field extension. You can define the notion of "square" in any semi-ring. But when we tack on the word "number", we often restrict it to the original context in which it was defined, which is often the broadest meaningful context when dealing with the common number sets. "Prime number" is a prime element in the commutative semi-ring of natural numbers, and it would lose all meaning when extended to the rational numbers or higher. "Algebraic number" is an algebraic element in field extension of the complex numbers over the rational numbers, and would lose all meaning if the base field were extended. And "square number" is a square element of the ring of integers, and it would lose all meaning if we extended it to the real numbers or complex numbers.
@MuffinsAPlenty sounds about right, I was never much of a number theorist though. I think we can safely say you chose B.
0 likes@D D LOL mans wants a metal for what? Subjecting yourself to this? U literally got into a semantics argument on the internet and expected to come out with a win. News flash, this is the internet. If you engage in an argument, that’s on you. Throw insults all you want, at the end of the day no ones gunna win.
0 likes🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 likes@UCUwOV6Lq9RZiCrF1rFI21qw you are an idiot. First sentence of Wikipedia: “@ - “In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.”
0 likes@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
0 likesIn mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
0 likesIn mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
0 likesIn mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.
I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
@ArkenLegend Thanks for reminding me about this comment section lmao.
1 likeI won't say you are wrong though. I've googled perfect square and the definition usually uses "integers multiplied by itself" which would mean 0 is a perfect square as well, but when I google the list of perfect squares, 0 is usually excluded.
I was so interested that I've sent an e-mail to one of my professors at uni who is actually one of the leading experts in number theory field.
Basically, the conclusion is that this question should've had "positive square numbers" in it's wording, so there wouldn't technically be any other answers.
@ArkenLegend Actually, now that I think about it, you are not correct. I knew it 3 years ago that the question was precisely asked and that multiple answers weren't possible, but I forgot about it for a moment.
7 likesSo the question states that we are looking for a square number that is a sum of two SMALLER square numbers. That's why you cannot have 0 + 16 = 16, since 16 is not smaller than 16.
@D D oh shit. Yeah you are right. The question is correct
0 likes@D D Lol dude you were right this whole time and still people were arguing with you. I used to think I am bad at math but when I saw the comments arguing on your correct defination of a "square number" I realised that I am smarter than so many people. I remember a question asked during my 6th grade or so, "How many square numbers are there between 1 and 100". The correct answer to this question was 9 but according to the people arguing with you there are 99 square numbers between 1 and 100. Btw why were you even arguing with such dumb heads 3 years ago. Someone has said it right "It's hard to win an argument against a genius, but it's impossible to win an argument against an idiot."
1 like@Aditya Singh I am not arguing with people from 3y ago, I just answered to one guy who commented few days ago. I actually didn't get any notifications for two full years until now and completely forgot about this discussion. Fun times. Thanks for agreeing with me though, you are the man.
0 likes@D D No no I didn't meant you are arguing with people from 3 years ago. I meant you were arguing 3 years ago with TheCelestialFox and some others who won't even try to understand what you were saying. It was not worth it to argue with such people.
0 likesyeah, but only one answer should be correct. it means that numbers are integers
0 likes@TheCelestialFox you are the one who doesn't understand basic math. Heres a list of what you got wrong.
1 likeWhole numbers and integers are not the same thing. Whole numbers go from 0 to infinity while integers go from negative infinity to infinity.
Squaring a non-integer does not always give another non-integer.
The square root of 2 is a non-integer, specifically, an irrational number. Squaring it gives you an integer, more specifically, 2.
Lastly, by your definition of "square number," all real numbers numbers are square numbers. This absoloutely defeats the point of calling it a square number in the first place. You would literally be able to call pi a square number.
I see the logic in calling a number that is squared a square number, but you do not make the definitions, and the definitions plural collectively say a square number is the square of an integer.
3.4K likes because they don’t do math. 3^2+4^2 are the smallest ones. 1^2 and sqrt of 15^2 are not the smallest. 15 is way larger than 4
0 likesNo? 15 is not a square number, nor is his square root, so hmm...
0 likes@Abdalla Ahmed but the question wasn't about square roots or numbers that can be squared, it's specifically about square numbers...
0 likesВы продолжаете эту дискуссию спустя 3 года? Ютуб рекомендации умеет ссорить людей.
1 likeThe question meant to say squared numbers. Numbers which are squared are basically squared numbers. It can be anything. You can square integers to get a square number. Square any irrational or rational even complex. Since the question just specifies the word "numbers" it can be any number in the realm of computable numbers. If the question was like that, "Which of these squared integers also happen to be the square of two smaller integers?", then only one answer. Option B.
0 likes@D D Hi there, you still active?
0 likesWell actually all options in the question was true because 0 is also a square number and we can write smth like this:
16=16+0=4^2+0^2
25=25+0=5^2+0^2
36=36+0=6^2+0^2
49=49+0=7^2+0^2
That’s just a smartass comment, you know what the question was, ffs
0 likes@Sounak Roy you're confusing square numbers and squareD numbers...
1 likeA square number is a number that, when squared, gives an integer.
So no, the question didn't meant to say squared numbers, it meant to say exactly what it said : square number, aka perfect square.
@D D this is hilarious, all these comments pissed me off so much when reading them. the funniest thing to me was that people who clearly have no fucking idea what they're talking about equated rational numbers and integers, even TheCelestialFox who claimed to have a CompSci degree. thank you for pushing back on them lol. Also, someone probably already said this but all the answers are correct: they're all the squares of integers and so is 0. 0^2 + 4^2 = 16^2. you could use a slightly different definition and say a square number n is an integer for which there exists a square with n as its area and another integer, sqrt(n), as its side length. then since a shape with side length 0 has no vertices and no angles, a square with side length 0 does not exist and 0 is not a square number.
1 like@TigerGold 59 All of the answers can't be correct. In your example, you have 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2 and it's not correct because the question states that the number needs to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. your answer is not correct because 4^2 is not smaller than 4^2.
4 likesPeople arguing against @D D in here probably also think 'adjective word' is legit terminology.
3 likes@D D Respect, dude. I wouldn't have lasted so long without calling him a retard. I once engaged in a similar conversation about the cardinality of the set of real numbers. Never again.
1 likeNo need to involve irrational numbers. 16 = 5.76 + 10.24, and 5.76 = 2.4^2 and 10.24 = 3.2^2. It will work with the other numbers too, all I did to get 2.4 and 3.2 was multiply 3 and 4 by 4/5. You can get 2 non-integer but rational numbers that add to 36 and 49 by using 6/5 and 7/5 in the same way. So for instance 18/5 is 3.6 and 24/5 is 4.8, so 12.96 and 23.04 are 2 square numbers that add to 36. And that would follow the actual definition of a square number, as the square roots are rational.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox The numbers you are citing (square root of 15, pi, etc.) are irrational, not rational. Quite the different thing
0 likesi wouldnt be surprised if bigmoist makes a video on this thread
0 likes@Salti Dawg ok dumb. A square number is of form n*n where n is an integer
0 likes@TheCelestialFox a square number is indeed same as a perfect square
0 likes@TheCelestialFox lol bro what's your problem? A square number is of form n*n where n is an integer
0 likes@Verdi you ok?
0 likes@Surbhi Maheshwari I value his points and am disgusted by the way you talk.
0 likes@ArkenLegend oh genius, you need to add two smaller squares to get that square number. 16 is not less than 16
0 likes@D D hats off to you. I am surprised by the fact that so many people don't know basic maths.
1 like@Ayush Mishra oh genius, I already replied I didn't read the question properly to DD and told I was mistaken.
0 likes@D D hats off to you, this argument was legendary. There is literally no way to convince overconfident idiots.
0 likes@D D So, you're just being nitpicky and pedantic about adding the word "number" after Perfect Square? Doesn't make OP's point incorrect.
0 likesLol ❤️
0 likes@D D I don't believe after 3 years, youtube recommends this video to me. I have seen this entire comment section and yea, I know people can be that ignorant and stupid, and I have a good laugh about it. The summary is: TheCelestialFox use HIS OWN DEFINITION of square number to argue, while this term actually already has a clear and precise definition in mathematics that differ entirely with his assumed to be true definition lol. D D has already tried multiple times to give this guy a refference regarding the correct mathermatical definition, but TheCelestialFox (being a troll) doesn't even read that refference and still arguing that his own definition of square number should be the correct one xD
1 likejfc this is long, I literally just scrolled down to the bottom to save myself from reading all that lmao. I'm pretty sure they teach square numbers in like year 6 or something lmao
0 likesNo.
0 likes@Lendz Elliott Never ever do you have a PHD in mathematics and come up with this crap 5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9
0 likes@rohitchaoji Because in maths, there is no such thing called "perfect square number". It´s either perfect square or perfect number. And OP is still incorrect since a square number is always made from an integer.
0 likes@TheCelestialFox Dude, I hope Boeing did not make the mistake to hire an ignorant fool like you.
0 likesTo all the idiots who believe that any answer is correct: Have you idiots really never wondered why no mathematician made a claim that the question was wrongly worded and has multiple possible answers? Never wondered why, if the question was wrongly phrased, the contestant never came back to get a correct question?
0 likes@bowlchamps37 Again, being nitpicky and pedantic about adding an extra term when what they meant should be pretty obvious to someone not trying to be nitpicky and pedantic.
0 likes@bowlchamps37 In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer; in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 3*3 and can be written as 3 × 3. This is the generally accepted definition of a Square Number.
0 likes@Lendz Elliott Yes, I know. I was just quoting some other guy with the QUOTE "5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9"
0 likesIt´s also not the genereally accepted definition but the only definition.
@rohitchaoji No, it´s about telling you that you look like a fool if you ever used perfect square number. It´s not just a word you add but you completely botch a mathematical term. Imagine you go somewhere with your dad and a tell another person "This is my "daddy father parent man". And also telling you that OP is still wrong.
0 likes@bowlchamps37 Again with the pedantry. Stick to football, man. All those head impacts and concussions aren't doing much for your intellect. I'm not just saying that. Concussions are a common football injury and causes brain damage.
0 likesNever, EVER ask laypeople anything about math. People just cannot do basic math.
0 likesFramed the question wrong.
169 likesReplies (17)
No, the question is not framed "wrong." It may be difficult to understand if you don't read it carefully, but 25 is the unambiguously correct answer to the question that was asked.
38 likesYeah it's pretty ambiguous... They didn't mention if the smaller numbers were natural numbers
23 likesI also thought the question could have been worded better. I thought any of them could have worked since (x^2 + 0^2 = x^2). Took me a few re-reads to get it.
6 likesI think it was the anxiety that made it hard. Try answering a question that requires some actual thought, while under pressure, and see how far you can take it.
1 likeWho cares, this isn't a maths quiz. Any rando who knows how squaring works can understand that the answer is unambiguously B. Do you guys really think that this show is going to throw some maths that's above general knowledge in a question? Or are you just trying to show off your epic math skillz to prove you're smarter than the average quizgoer?
5 likes@Simon Torres I agree with you. I have a math degree and people here are getting all too technical. Like what are they supposed to say? Natural numbers that is a subset of the real field and non-isomorphic to the complex numbers? Oh, my bad, I should have said field. Give me a break. Obviously they can't all work so you throw out the trivial solutions. I'm not saying it should have been easy to get answer B; what I'm saying is that people here are too technical and pedantic. That's best left for an actual math class.
4 likesMuffinsAPlenty how about some of us arent native speakers and cant properly understand it? :p
0 likesLittleR0124 x^2 (5 x 5 = 25) is not smaller than x^2. Both the other square numbers are supposed to be smaller than the answer.
2 likesLittleR0124 that would mean every answer is right, which isn’t how the game works, never has.
3 likeslol i answered it in 2 secounds
1 likeNo it’s not, you probably just don’t understand.
3 likesMike V no the question is quite straightforward!
3 likesOfc it is absolutely clear. It even says the sum of 2 "smaller" squares. So all the 0² people have no point. And this cannot even be catogarized a math question. This is common knowledge. Next time when someone asks who the 1st President of the US was, you cannot answer. I am neither into history nor politics.
4 likesI am generally slow at math, but I have a logical mind and I got it before the poll The question is complicated for a quiz show with lights on you but not WRONG.
2 likesAudience and home viewers have no excuse unless they are uneducated... for once an excuse.
What's wrong in the question?
1 like+Stay Calm: The person I replied to said that 5^2 + 0^2 could've worked. It could not, because the question states "two smaller square numbers", and 5^2 is not smaller than 5^2. And no, bowlchamps37 isn't dumb.
1 likeConfusing language used ...
0 likesbruh literally just a 3,4,5 triangle
0 likesThis question based on Pythagorean triplet
0 likesThe question was worded vaguely, don't get such a hard on over judging people.
43 likesReplies (7)
It was NOT worded vaguely. He's just dumb. In fact, I don't know how you couldn't worded it better
7 likesIsn't he right though. 0^2 + 4^2 = 16? 0 is > 16 and 4> 16. Therefore 16 is the sum of two smaller squared numbers 0 and 4 unless 0 has suddenly ceased to no longer be a number?
1 likethat would mean that every answer is right, because you can argue that for every square number
7 likes0 is a number but by most definitions not a square number
2 likesThat is not true at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
0 likesTwo smaller square numbers - ie 16 cannot be included, because both of the numbers that sum to it must be smaller than 16
8 likesJim Jeffries If 25 = 16 + 9 is the answer they wanted to hear, then 16 (as a part of the sum) is not smaller than 16 (being one of the options). It seems that the meaning of "smaller" is not clear.
3 likesTERRIBLY phrased...
896 likesReplies (136)
mohaed96 seemed like a decent explanation to me. It was clearly B
75 likesHow is it terribly phrased? Dude, if you didn't understand it you are just lazy.
58 likesI'm not a native speaker but it seemed like a pretty accurate explanation.
39 likesEdit: I'm also an engineering student.
I'm an engineering major and therefore pretty good at math and at first glance I would have also said A. It is phrased very weirdly
51 likesmohaed96 which of these square numbers (16, 25, 36, or 49) also happens to be the sum (addition) of two smaller square numbers (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36).
10 likeslamakicker69 Im also an engineer and I inmediately understood what they meant, and also I knew the answer before they showed it. 3*3+4*4=5*5 is a thing that even ancient egyptians knew ...
19 likesEric Pive okay so you read the question correctly...I didn't at first....i don't know what your point is? Also if you understood how to do the problem immediately then I would hope you would have been able to know the answer before they revealed it, there was almost 2 minutes between the question and then revealing the correct answer...
3 likeslamakicker69 My point is that the question can be successfully understood.
0 likesAnd yes, I did, but only because I already knew that 3*3+4*4=5*5.
Eric Pive I'm not saying it can't be understood...I'm saying I can see how it can be misunderstood. And once again if you understand it then it's not very impressive to know the answer is 16 before they tell you it's 16 because you have well over a minute to solve it before they say which answer is right...unless you are trying to say you somehow knew the answer before they even put up the options
3 likeslamakicker69 That's what I meant to say. I knew it before they showed the options. Not that it is any relevant anyway.
0 likesBut yeah, everything can be misunderstood, although if you read the sentence carefully, there is no ambiguity, that's why I think it isn't terribly phrased as some people say...
answer is 25 btw xd
3 likesEric Pive yeah but most people just kinda read it quickly and can often make a simple mistake. Also it's impossible to know the answer before they put up the options because you wouldn't know which numbers you were working with
2 likeslamakicker69 Well, I knew that 25 could be a solution, I'm sure other solutions exist, but I don't know any more.
0 likesPeople should know that they shouldn't read a math question quickly, they have very precise wording that needs to be understood exactly ^^"
+Eric Pive How did you knew the answer before the options were shown? It could also be 100,225,279,400 etc.
3 likes+Orhun Sevindi No it couldn't, they needed something the contender could've figured out if he hadn't known about it beforehand, and 25 is literally the only feasible option for that question. Anyone remotely familiar with basic math concepts would know the answer before the options were shown.
0 likesEric Pive It could have easily been 5,12,13 or any other right triangle for that matter. There's no possible way you could know for sure what the answer was, before the options were read to you. Maybe you had an idea of what one solution was but you needed the choices to know they were looking for 25.
1 likeEric Pive I know but under pressure like that it's you can't blame a guy for messing up, and it's not like all those people that didn't say B didn't know how to solve the problem...most of them probably just read it wrong
0 likes+citrisprime It couldn't have been any of those numbers, since none of them are themselves square numbers. 25 is the only numbers that's both easy enough to be feasible and also correct, so yeah, anyone familiar with basic math concepts knew the answer before the options popped up.
6 likestenrecc you're an idiot, obviously those numbers squared. 25 + 144 =169
1 likeWell actually, technically speaking, 5,12,13 or 6,8,10 can be easily ruled out before the timer runs out. It wouldn't be likely but the option could be other than "25". You can't be sure but believe it's most likely 25. Besides, every school teaches these special triangles
0 likesEric pave said he only knows one solution and he knew the answer for sure before seeing the options. I'm saying that's not possible
0 likesYeah dude I agree with you it wasn't for you lol
0 likescitrisprime That's like... Exactly what I said? I only said that I knew one solution, which happened to be the correct one. I'm sure it isn't the only one, but it's the most simple.
1 likelamakicker69 Reading wrong is the worse excuse to fail a question. First thing to answer anything, is to make sure you understood what you are asked. If you can't do this, you don't deserve any money tbh. He should be happy he kept 1.000
3 likescitrisprime Well, I thought I knew the answer, and I happened to be right. It just came to my mind, before I could think that there could be other solutions, I saw 25 as a possible answer so I knew it was B, since only one answer can be correct... I don't know why we are still talking about this though, it's not relevant to anything.
1 like+citrisprime I wasn't even considering that, because it's asinine. It's a program about general knowledge, not doing mental math. And there's only one feasible and correct answer to that question. Not only couldn't you figure it out, you still can't figure out how others could. I'm sorry, but you're the idiot here.
1 liketenrecc How? 25 could have easily been replaced with 100 or 169 it's not asinine. Just admit you were wrong. Nobody could know for sure what the answer was, even if they think they knew what the answer most likely was
0 likesEric Pive oh its definitely his fault and he doesn't deserve the money but like people shouldn't be shitting on the guy in these comments hahaha the dude made a mistake I'm sure he knew how to do it!
0 likesEric Pive You say that so smugly. there's more than one Pythagorean triple dude.
0 likesOh my fucking god, this people are so dense. I DIDN'T KNOW THE FUCKING ANSWER, I JUST KNEW THE MOST SIMPLE SOLUTION AND THAT HAPPENED TO BE THE CORRECT ONE, CAN WE JUST MOVE ON NOW? I can't believe we are still talking about that thing.
0 likesEric Pive I'd assume other options would just be multiples of the 3,4,5 number so. for example 6*6+8*8=10*10
0 likes@Eric Pive You are so arrogant it's unreal. We get it, you have the right answer and you deserve to get the 15.000 that this guy lost. Please get over yourself.
0 likesKoe0 how am i arrogant? everyone is completely missing my point (the question can easily be understood) and talking about wether i knew or i didnt know the answer when this thing has already been clarified and was never interesting anyway.
1 likeit's honestly phrased fine, youre probably just lacking in comprehension skills.
4 likesmohaed96 no?
0 likesclutchmamba
0 likesIt's phrased not in the same way as real maths exam questions tend to be.
+absolutiontheory98 thats because a real math test that involves the addition of square numbers would be labeled as a Pythagorean Theorem test, because Pythagorean Theorem is usually its own unit in a math curriculum.
0 likesbut this isnt a math test. it's a game show. and honestly, in the real world, youre probably gonna get unusually phrased problems thrown at you all the time
How was it poorly phrased? I'm terrible at math but I understood it just fine.
1 likeOHP77
1 likeBecause questions are not asked like that in real maths exams.Someone like me who's used to Cambridge Maths questions for A levels,I interpret it in many ways and I didn't know which interpretation they are asking for.Maybe I also tried solving it under 1 min and I gave up under the pressure.After the answer was given only then I know what they're asking for.It's something to do with the pythogaras concept.
absolutiontheory98 Please, explain which interpretations you can give to the question, otherwise, you are just full of shit.
7 likesit was a fair question you have to read it all the way though and really think, i get why people would think 16 it makes sense, those werent the squares they were looking for.
1 like"It could have easily been 5,12,13"
1 likeThen you don't know what "easily" means. This is a game show.
IMO it was not said that the number had had to be natural.
0 likesthan obviosly all numbers are sum of SOME unknown squares.
0 likesbrbCZa Square number implies that.
1 likeabsolutiontheory98 How did you originally interpret it?
0 likesEric Pive
0 likesHave you taken CIE A levels sir or IB exam or frankly undergraduate degree in Maths??If your knowledge in Maths does not transcend after middle school,you have no right to call me full of shit when you have no idea how real maths question are asked.Exam questions are purposely designed to test the concept and not on the understanding of the statement.
absolutiontheory98 "Exam questions are purposely designed to test the concept and not on the understanding of the statement."
1 likeBut if you know the concept of Pythagorean triples, you should be able to understand this statement. stop getting mad just because you're bad at interpreting worded math problems. how do you suppose they should have phrased it then, since you claim this one is so "unclear" and "terribly phrased?" give us an example of how you think it shouldve been phrased
absolutiontheory98 Uhm... I'm an engineer, so..
1 likeBtw, how is it any relevant? I don't know why you even bring it to the discussion. Also, do you have any way to make the question more clear?
lol looks like this guy got it wrong too and is trying to make an excuse
3 likesits 15k. u would spend more than a glance on the question.
0 likeswhen they said a sum of 2 smaller squares i thought they meant that the 2 smaller squares had to be the same. so a smaller square x2. now thay i see the answer idk why i thought that way but yea i can understand him
0 likesYeah instead of "square numbers" a better term to use would have been "squares" or "perfect squares" because that is what those numbers are actually called. They also could have been more explicit with the sum thing saying two other perfect squares added together but that's just a minor difference imo
0 likes"Square numbers" is exactly the same thing as "perfect squares"
4 likeshttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
I know they mean the same thing, My point and the original comment wasn't that they used the wrong terminology, only that the question was poorly phrased. In my opinion "square" or "perfect square" is a better term to use in this case.
0 likesWhy would you say A? What did you think the question was?
0 likesMaybe he confused sum and product? Since 16 is 4x4 and 4 is 2x2
0 likesIt seemed pretty straightforward to me. Man those excuses for not knowing math
3 likeswell an opinion's an opinion amiright
0 likes+Eric Pive
1 likeIf you're gonna edit you might as well edit thoroughly. Before you say that isn't relevant, just remember you're arguing clear and concise interpretation from this video. You never claimed to be an english major, but at least don't be a douchy engineer who can't spell. You're making the rest of us engineers seem like we are all illiterate. The question is a very easy question that grade school covers yet most of the audience was not choosing B so it was set up to be a bit mind boggling although it technically is asking for what it intends to get as an answer.
Uh... Dafuq are you talking about? I'm not even english, so you are the only douchy here. Maybe you should talk to me in spanish if you are so afraid that I will look every engineer look English illiterate.
0 likesEveryones an engineer these days especially if they're from India.....well that's what the majority of Indians on Clash of Clans say they are when they pretend they're from the UK, USA, Australia or Canada. It's almost as if they're trying to make themselves look clever, like the 18yo Cambridge student above saying it could be interpreted many ways (when it couldn't) and the other Fruit (sorry Citrus) using non-square numbers as why it could have been a different answer.
0 likesDaniel Gardecki Engineers in clash of clans? kek
0 likesyea this was horrible phrased
0 likesMichael Chang Nah, you are just stupid and lazy to bother understanding it.
2 likesMakes perfect sense to me
1 likelamakicker69 why the hell would it be A? Hope your not an engineer since you would probably be fired if you couldn't answer that question. In what world does two square numbers add up to 16? There are physically no square numbers that would add up to 16.
0 likesMr Muscle I'd hire an engineer who I can teach that concept to rather than a douchebag wannabe like yourself
0 likes+Mr Muscle
1 likeIn what world does someone with a toddler's grasp of the English language lecture a native English speaking engineering student on a word problem?
Hank And how do I have a toddler's grasp of the English language exactly? I'm not lecturing I'm baffled by how he can not understand that simple "Word problem" even though he's an engineering student. You get taught about square numbers in juniors school, it's not difficult it's just a fancy word for saying a number times by itself once.
1 like"Hope your not"
0 likes"In what world does two"
"physically no square numbers"
"a number times by itself"
Your misuse and lack of punctuation
He misread/misheard it. It's that simple. Considering 45% of people in the audience thought it was A--the correct answer being the third most selected of the four choices--it seems to have been a pretty common mistake. It's probably caused by a psychological phenomenon similar the one that causes the vast majority of people to not notice repeated words that span a line-break, or the one that allows you to scrmable the odrer of letetrs in wodrs witohut singfictnly reudcnig redabailtiy as I did just now.
Hank wow a few grammar and punctuation mistakes on the internet, must posses toddler English skills. I'm rushing my sentences dude, this isn't an assignment.
0 likes+Santiago Ferrari
2 likesLook up the definition of "square number." What would be the point of defining squares as you seem to be? Literally every number would be a square.
sqrt(0)=0
sqrt(-36)=6i
Even if we haven't bothered giving a result some sort of notation, you could just leave it as the square root of whatever to continue your calculation
+Santiago Ferrari
1 likeThen why create the word if it includes everything?
Yes, i is a number. sqrt(-1).
"imaginary numbers are not numbers"
1 likeYou heard it here first, folks.
***** Imaginary numbers? When you think about it all numbers are Imaginary
1 likeHe is losing only 15k, what are you talking? He could have won 16k, he won 1k, he lost 15k.
0 likes+Fresh Rock Papa-E
0 likesHe's "more correct" in a sense. He's lost the opportunity to win the $16k, and instead won $1k. He never actually won the $16k, so it's not really as simple as subtracting the two. Even if it were, that would introduce the potential that he could go on to win the $1M, which would then mean he actually "lost" $999k. Then, if you look at what he "has earned so far" as earnings, he would have lost the $16k that he earned, but then won $1k as a sort of consolidation. If YouTube tells me "failed to post" imma be pissed.
How is it more correct? If you interpret things that way, then he hasn't lost anything. Only then you have a point, but not if you claim that he has lost 16k.
0 likesAlso, just copy the comment and do f5 when youtube does that. I don't even know why they changed it, worked so much better before..
0 likesRefreshing SOMETIMES helps, but I've spent a good 5 minutes refreshing trying to get a comment to post...
0 likesHank For me it helps always :s
0 likeshow do you know this? does not apply to 4*4+5*5=41 !=6*6
0 likes+Fresh Rock Papa-E
0 likesI know the actual solution. Play the video--after a potential ad--for a second. YouTube doesn't let you comment on a video that's open if you haven't watched any of it, which really only hinders the few of us who don't block ads. Good move, Google.
+Maarten Mtr
0 likesHave you ever heard of a 3-4-5 triangle? It's a fairly fundamental part of geometry. That's why he knew it off the top of his head. It doesn't work with 4, 5, and 6 because that's not how scaling works. 4, 16/3, and 20/3, though, and the easier 6, 8, and 10.
Hank yes I have heard of it. just did not come to mind. thank you :)
0 likesHank The amount of times we use 3-4-5 triangle in upper engineering classes is almost never. It may come up here or there but I can see how it doesn't come to mind to some people, let alone engineers. However you dont need to know the triangle to do the question, just a short cut.
0 likesAnd yes, if I remember correctly, my first choice was A because I didn't wait to process the question properly (edit: and I'm an idiot). I think it was probably just because 16's a nicer number. 2^2=4 -> 4^2 = 16; 2^4=16; etc. I do a lot of stuff with digital logic, so round base 2 values are very attractive to me.
0 likesOf course, then I actually read the question properly and realized what the correct answer was.
Hank So... You guessed randomly what the answer was without understanding the question. Why would you do that?
0 likesanon86 It happens from time to time though. It's one of those things that you end up memorizing, like the sines and cosines of 30º,45º and 60º, sqrt(2), and so on.
0 likes+Fresh Rock Papa-E
0 likesMy first response can be found in that last post of mine "I'm an idiot"
The second can be inferred from that same post, being that the question was about squares and my eyes immediately went to the nicest number. Think about when you reflexively jump up and hit your head on a shelf, or you pull your arm back and hit it on the wall behind you. Why would you bang your head on the shelf or elbow the wall?
Have you never made stupid arithmetic mistakes on an exam? I just got a linear algebra test back. The 3% that I lost were because I screwed up a couple of elementary row operations. Your brain sees a somewhat familiar pattern, and spits out the most common result of that pattern before you have a chance to think about the problem.
It's not the same kind of mistake though..
0 likes+Fresh Rock Papa-E
0 likesWhat's different about it?
Fresh Rock Papa-E its the same type of mistake. You're missing the point. This question is about memorization more than anything. I can assure you that many people who may be great at differential equations, could have completed screwed that question up if watching this video.
1 like+anon86
0 likesI might even go so far as to say that people who are comfortable with higher level math--like DEs, Linear Algebra, and Complex Variables--would be more likely to screw it up than people only fluent up to something like college algebra or calc 1 because the latter group is more likely to be careful while people like you or I often don't want to waste any time on such trivial calculations.
It's not the same type of mistake. One is just a computation error. The other is being lazy and not trying to understand the question before answering. They have completely different causes.
0 likesHank Quite surely this is the most retarded thing I will read today, and I'm quite confident of it despite being just 1:29 AM here. Anyone who has been taught advanced math (or anything about stem really), has developed the methodology to think critically and reasonably before jumping to conclusion using his intuition. It's just necessary to go through education. You don't answer questions until you have read them like 3 times and you are confident of what you are asked.
0 likesWow I type so slowly, 1:32 already ._.
0 likes+Fresh Rock Papa-E
0 likesSounds to me like you don't read what you write ;)
And you clearly didn't follow your own advice about answering/replying before comprehending.
0 likesHank I'm gonna ignore this guy for a bit, seems a little too eager at 1:30 AM. I know exactly what you mean, there is this math equation that this world renowned mathematician could never solve. Some retards can in like 2 min. It's somewhere on vsauce but I can link if you're interested. Anyways the point stands, you'll be better at what you did more recently in a lot of cases, like this one where a 3-4-5 triangle hasn't come up in my engineering years but would a lot in grade 11. I feel this guy might be around that age. Nothing wrong with that just a 3-4-5 triangle might be more relevant to him.
1 likeGuys like patrickjmt make a living off of dumbing things down in math, less wordy. He is considered one of the best online for highschool to early uni math courses, and he would never have used that type of wording. It is done with the intention to not fork up a million dollars, some people just dont get that part.
1 like+anon86
1 likeI think I may have already seen it. I think a bigger, more common issue with situations like this is that there's really no reason to analyze the questions extremely carefully and scrupulously perform the algebra. We in the comments aren't trying to win a million dollars. Why waste more than a few seconds solving it and reading it? When you're taking a difficult test, you don't have time to read through the question thrice before solving it. You answer it based on your experience and intuition, and move on. If you have time, you go back. You can even go back to earlier questions on the GRE now.
If you're writing a paper, signing off on a project, or releasing a product, yes you check everything over carefully. Then again, none of those situations require you to glean the intended meaning from a word problem.
Hank Exactly, and oh thats helpful, when I wrote the SAT I remember they wouldn't let yo go back on anything once each section was done. But yeah, had someone else worded this much better, I bet 70% of the audience would not guess A, much less. This math problem should be more a math problem than word problem.
0 likes+anon86
0 likesThey still don't let you go back to old sections since the difficulty of the second section is based on how well you did on the first section, but I think the old version didn't allow you to revisit the previous questions of a section after submitting it. I'm not sure how the paper delivered version handles things, though... Maybe they have a few graders on standby with the key to grade each part before you get through the first section of the other part? That probably won't be relevant for you, though, since you being on YouTube makes me think wherever you're from will use the computerized version.
My advice is to start studying for that a couple months in advance. I only gave myself a couple of weeks, so I didn't improve a whole lot... CrunchPrep has some great guides, study plans, and links to free resources like full length practice exams.
Yeah I kinda walked into the SAT without much prep, was not fun
1 likeOh, I love the ad hominems, fyi I'm about to finish my mechanical engineering degree. Not that it matters in any way, but since you wanted to talk about this...
0 likesAlso, I've just read again what I typed last night, and it completely understandable.
Ad hominems lmao, okay I was just going to give you some time because you seem to be more argumentative than anything else that could be constructive... at least at the time. The only argument here is about the language used in the million dollar question. It wasn't worded to be comprehensible, even if it was comprehended by people. And I was talking to Hank about engineering not you, I really don't have time for arrogant, pretentious engineers, as if there aren't enough that think they are top shit because they remember pythagorean triples from grade school.
1 likeI know it's my fault for using "Hank" as a screen name, and I know there's no better designation for people to use, but I always chuckle a little whenever someone refers to me as Hank. It's a strange anomaly. When I use other screen names, it doesn't faze me at all, but when I use "Hank," I giggle internally every time. Maybe it's because it's a real name?
0 likesFresh Rock Papa-E So just arrogant I suppose. And you can figure that out yourself by just going through any comments about how it was worded poorly. For one I would have said 2 distinct numbers rather than "what two numbers". I guess I have an argument now.. Actually just to shut you up here: "The sum of two distinct square numbers happens to equal which of these numbers". I wouldn't mention that A B C or D are perfect squares whatsover. Them doing that is just a red herring. And honestly go through your comments from when this all started and decide if you're a pretentious douche or not. I'm not the only one who's called you out on being one.
1 likeI'm the pretentious one now? You're acting like a champ because you remembered a pythagorean triple, that's as arrogant and pretentious as engineers get.
1 likeanon86 Uh, sure, whatever man, I'm arrogant and pretentious.
1 like+MrTarz
0 likesNo, anon's calling him arrogant because he's arrogant. He's used the "I'm an engineer. I'm smarter than you. Stop trying to debate me" card, despite not being an actual engineer. He claims to be a student about to finish up his ME degree. Depending on where he's from, he might be considered an engineer once he gets that, but in the US, he isn't even eligible to start taking the certification exams. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even know about them. Do you refer to a medical student as a doctor?
Hank Uh... I didn't "use" the "I'm an angineer I'm smarter than you". HE was the one who brought up the topic of my level of education, and I simply corrected him. How is that being pretentious or arrogant? If anything he was that, assuming my level of education.
0 likesAnd I didn't even say I was an engineer. I always said I'm just a student, so dafuq are you talking about? You criticize me for things I didn't say at all!
+Fresh Rock Papa-E
1 likeYour 4th comment in this thread: "Im also an engineer and I inmediately understood what they meant, and also I knew the answer before they showed it." Which in itself could be considered arrogant considering you go on to call other people idiots for doing exactly what you did; You "knew the answer before they showed it" despite there being an infinite number of solutions described by the Pythagorean Triple that you so proudly remembered.
He didn't assume your level of education. He said that your comments made you seem like you had that level of education. He even went onto say that having that level of education isn't a bad thing. You seemed to be deeply offended for having your self perceived superiority or prowess recognized by him. That is, by definition, arrogance.
If you're going to call people idiots for not re-reading a question carefully several times before even letting their brains do anything related to said question, it might be a good idea to read others' comments--or at least your own comments--carefully once or twice before replying in an emotionally driven salt-fest.
Hank Uh.. Whatever man. I just don't care anymore about this conversation.
0 likes+MrTarz
1 likeJust to clarify, he claimed to be an engineer, which he's not. While claiming such a thing is being... Less than honest... It still wasn't arrogant.
He then slowly started calling other people stupid, which could start to be considered arrogant, but my first few comments in this thread were still defending him. It was then that I started explaining to him what these "idiots" may have been thinking and he started to really show his colors. He called me an idiot for doing exactly what he did; the only difference was that I caught my mistake less than a second after I'd made it while he left his and luckily chose the one choice of the infinite solutions that he could have chosen from had he understood the method he'd used.
He then dropped his hand on the table when anon pointed out that his reasoning, experience, and mannerisms lined up with those of a high school student, making sure to emphasize that it was just an observation and that there's nothing wrong with being a high school student even if that ended up being the case. Fresh didn't seem to agree that there was nothing wrong with being a high school student.
Fresh Rock Papa-E yeah only interested when it suits you, stop coming back to this then. I mean you have lied about your own word more than once now, but 'whatever man'
1 likeMrTarz Engineering students don't typically have CV's... like ever. I knew the answer but at first glance I was caught on the wording. That's quite the jump in logic you made by assuming I called him arrogant for knowing the answer. To be honest I haven't taken one word of this guy seriously, so I would not be bothered if he claimed he got the answer. This question would never be asked of an engineer in his field ever, so I find it hard to believe he's even in mecheng since all the mecheng friends I have would most definitely trash the irrelevance to this question in mech.
1 like(root of 49 /root of 2) squared (root of 49 /root of 2) squared = 49
0 likesroots anulate with squared, but the number needed to be squared, folowing the question. so its basicaly half of 49 + half of 49 = 49.
this aplies to every awnser
this question was bull shit this man should sue them.
for the awnser to be corect, the number NEEDED TO BE A NATURAL NUMBERS, leading to a pretty bad made question
"square numbers" already implies natural numbers, so...
1 likeFresh Rock Papa-E u sure? Lol
0 likesYes. I'm sure. Otherwise anything can be a square number, since any number can be expressed as a square of an irrational number. Also, look it up next time. https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/square-number.html
0 likesFresh Rock Papa-E 49 is a squared number. Root 49 squared is 49 and root 49 isnt a natural number
0 likes+QizziT
2 likesWe already have a word for what you think a square is. It's called a "number"
"root 49" is 7, and seven obviously is a natural number. Dafuq are you saying?
0 likesFresh Rock Pape-E He's trying to salvage his loses. root 49 is a square number QizziT every time you say (49)^.5 , just assume you're saying 7. & is a whole number. 10 is a whole number right? Well using your logic if I tie 10 up into some stupid expression, lets say (10^2)/10...is that expression a whole number, yes because that expression is just a way of expressing the (whole) number 10.
0 likesDaniel Hu well your area must not be stats then. An average seventh grader can work it out? Well look how much of the audience couldn't. Does not align with what you said. You just dont get it, this is not about the math difficulty its about the wording. I already proved up there^ waaaay up there, that it could be worded better.
0 likesps. please dont say ohhh idiot you didnt get it haaha, once I got my mind past the wording, I got it. Super simple, it's not even about forgetting the meaning of square numbers, it's simply the wording. Nah stfu Daniel, man I hate that westernized asian type, you're like the worst of both worlds. I would much rather you get your friends off the boat and switch with them, I like the ones that I don't understand.
I was talking about the people who wouldn't have been able to solve it even with perfect wording and honestly don't get me into YOUR passionate three week flame war since I never asked for that.
1 likeAnd please don't bring politics and stuff into this discussion here insulting peoples race and even worse saying you hate them unless you are here to discuss race then I will ignore any further notifs on this comment thread. Wow the world really is a dangerous place you just made me reassess my safety online
1 likewhy? it's not my first language but i can't spot alot of ambiguity here ...?
1 likeI cant continue this discussion cus i dont know the englsi math terms for this stuff. Okol you won
0 likesbaited
2 likeswell what did you expect ? The show is trying to do that so it's harder to get the answer
0 likesgaaazz tank Maths? must be an international student. Every fucking indian in my eng class calls it maths, man fuck internationals. And ya I proved it, my version was much easier to understand for everyone I told. And I never said the program had an obligation to cater their wording for us, it wasn't unfair wording either, just more complex than what I wrote. You of all foreign bastards should know that clarity in speaking english is key to not coming across as indian online.
0 likes@Nick D Yes, 5x5 + 12x12 = 13x13 = 169, but 169 was not one of the choices.
0 likeseverybody knows the right triangle side pair 3, 4, and 5.
0 likesThe audience was thinking 2^2 * 2^2 = 16. That's the product, not the sum X(
0 likesReplies (1)
I think the audience chose 16 because it was choice A. Most members probably have no clue what it means to square a number.
0 likesI would've said the same thing. The question was poorly worded.
543 likesReplies (67)
Carolyn R can you tell me how you got that answer. It seemed easy to me but so many people got the same answer as you.
34 likesThat's a bad excuse, the question was worded badly but you have to be a complete idiot to not understand it
67 likesHow else could it be worded? It seemed pretty clear to me.
59 likeshow was it poorly worded? how can it be interpreted differently?
29 likesIt isn’t poorly worded. There are only 2 squares smaller than those displayed too. Can’t blame the guy being under pressure though.
26 likesCarolyn R No it’s extremely easy to understand if you know basic high school math
20 likesJFrog it’s worded in a way to make people think that the answer is 16 or makes you lean there.
23 likesBy mentioning that the answers are all square numbers and repeating that makes you THINK that the importance is that the square number answer should be composed of what makes it a square number which is also a square number.
The square root of 16 is 4, with 4 also being a perfect square number. That makes the question misleading but not wrong. It’s just tricking you that’s all.
The better way to rephrase the question in order to orient your mind in the right direction would be “Which of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers?” Thus not making you think that being a square number is the MOST import part of the problem.
Anyway that’s how I took it anyway
@Nico-v11 But....But they're all square numbers anyway...
9 likesFire Boogaloo no. The square root of 25 is 5 which is not a square number.
12 likesWhich is why at first glance people would think that 16 is the answer when at first glance it is the ONLY answer that has both factors when square rooted to also be perfect squares (being 4).
@Nico-v11 Ah ok, Im with you now. You're saying that 4 is the square root of 16 and 4 can also be square rooted to make 2. That doesnt really make sense though since the question asks you to sum. I dont get how you come to 16 as the answer from that logic unless you dont know what 'sum' means. Then again, if you dont know what sum means and know what square rooting is, you have bigger problems to worry about.
18 likesAlso, I thought you meant 25, 36 etc. weren't square numbers but 16 was, not that 4 is a square number and 5 and 6 aren't.
Fire Boogaloo what I’m saying is that 4 also being a square number distracts the person at first glance making them think that’s the answer.
1 likeIt’s not really even being able to solve the answer in the first place though.
@Nico-v11 When you're on millionaire, you kinda need to be able to take the question as a whole or you aren't gonna win. I sort of get where you're coming from but I doubt that everyone followed that process to get 16. Most are probably just idiots.
11 likes@Brek Martin actually every number can be represented by the sum of two smaller square numbers so every answer is correct
3 likesNile Cameron it was
0 likesasdf asdf If your definition of a square number is different to everyone else’s. It was fair to assume perfect integer squares.
2 likes@Brek Martin but it could only be assumed. Questions that could be interpreted so differently that the answers also would be different shouldnt be asked in quizshows. The questions should be specified enough that stuff like this cant happen
2 likesEvery number has a square root, but if every number is going to be a square number, there’s no reason to qualify any number as such. It’s just a waste of a word. Just as it would be to define a set of integers as evenly divisible by 1.
9 likesThe question is not poorly worded. It's just you misunderstood the question. Your fault there.
10 likesRemembering the right triangle formula is so important in this scene.
0 likesCarolyn R 25, easy
0 likesIt's not really poorly worded. It seems pretty self explanatory to me. 3 squared (9) plus 4 squared (16) equals 5 squared (25). So the awnser is clearly 25.
3 likes@Nico-v11 Well the question is clearly asking for the sum of two square numbers. 4+2 clearly equals 6 not 16. Secondly all the awnsers are square numbers. There is nothing misleading or ambigious about this question for anyone who has any basic knowledge of Maths. Thirdly you say the question should be phrased. "Which of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers"
9 likesBut isn't that exactly what the question says. Why does the fact that they are square numbers alter what the question is asking.
@Ferry Hömig I think you need to go back to school. Please explain how the number 1 for example can be the sum of 2 smaller square numbers. Also please explain how 36, 49, and 16 can be the sum of 2 other square numbers
4 likes@EBOJFM DBOOJOH 1 can be (sqrt(0.5)^2)*2
1 likeAnd I still am in school xD
The principle above would work on ever number. Its possible to really pick any 2 numbers of which the sum is the wished number. For 16 we could pick 12 and 4 for example which would then be sqrt(12)^2 + sqrt(4)^2 which would be 12 + 4 which is 16.
@Ferry Hömig But 12 is not a square number.
8 likesNot really. In simple it would be asked as "Which of these is a pythagorean triplet?" and people still wouldn't be able to answer it.
0 likes@EBOJFM DBOOJOH I am not talking about 12 but about the squareroot of 12
1 like@Ferry Hömig The square root of 12 would be a decimal number and therefore not a square number. Using your theory you could just add up any 2 numbers that add up to 16. For example you could pick 15 + 1 or 7 +9 etc. I admire the way you like to challenge things but at some point you must use common sense. You can't make a square number just by squaring it's root.
2 likesI answered the question as soon as I saw the thumbnail without even seeing the options. But only because I still studying and I come across squares and cubes and roots all the time. And also a Pythagores Triangle of sides 3,4,5 is the most common example.
0 likesBut that guy or probably me in 5-10 yrs wouldn't get that under pressure.
EBOJFM DBOOJOH Not this again. The exact same discussion is going on another thread (its a month old now) and it's pure chaos.
0 likes@John C J Yeah, well some people cant be reasoned with. I cant help it if people can't grasp what people are telling them. I'm not the best at maths but this is pretty basic maths
0 likesCongratulations you're a dumbass
0 likes@Ferry Hömig ye but no one likes people who want to show that they look really smart so stop being pedantic
0 likes@Muhammad Nuruddin you mean Pythagoras theorem?
0 likes@EBOJFM DBOOJOH he's talking about numbers that aren't whole integers, that square to bigger numbers, e.g. 16= 3 squared (9) + √7 which is something like 2.6 or 2.7 : basically he's trying to look like he's smart, and technically he's right, but hes just being pedantic and annoying
0 likes@EBOJFM DBOOJOH technically every number is an other number squared however something only counts as a square number if the number you square to get it is a whole integer
1 like@EBOJFM DBOOJOH just stop trying to be pedantic then and accept that that this was a question on a game show, not a maths exam
0 likesNo you just don't understand the question its easy tbh
0 likesFederation 21 yes
0 likesI didn’t read ‘sum’ in that question and I was like ‘lmao what?’ I would’ve said 16 because 4^2= 16 and a square has 4 sides (this was still when I didn’t read the question properly and didn’t understand it) and then after like 3 minutes i was ‘sum’.. I’m like wtf, why am I so blind.
0 likesEnglish is my 2nd language. I still got the answer.
0 likesNo, the question is worded perfectly fine..If you would have given that answer, 16, please explain how it could possible be right or make any sense.
1 likeNope. Worded perfectly fine.
1 likeIt was straight forward english
3 likesThe question wasn't worded badly at all
1 likeArchie Brew
0 likes2 squared is 4 and 4 squared is 16. So 16 is made up of two square numbers 2 and 4.
How was it worded badly
0 likes@Ryan Hutchinson did you skip the word sum? It's not poorly worded, people just have poor comprehension skills.
1 likeThis sounds more like a LANGUAGE problem rather than a MATH problem.
0 likes@Ryan Hutchinson
1 like2 squared =4
4 squared = 16
4+16 = 20
So the sum of 2 squared and 4 squared is 20 not 16.
The question is asking for the sum of 2 squared numbers.
(3 squared)9 + 16(4 squared)= 25
9 and 16 are both smaller than 25.
Therefore 25 is the only possible awnser.
Should've said two different smaller numbers.
0 likes@Art3M1s 3 squared + 4 squared = 25. The question is worded fine.
0 likes@JFrog 4 square equals 16 obviously 4x4=16. It said which square number also happens to be the sum of two smaller squares. 2 square equals 4, because obviously 2x2=4. Which that squared equals 16. And like the question ask which of these squared numbers is the sum of two smaller squared numbers.....
0 likesJames Alvarado I kinda understand but the question is asking the sum of two numbers (that can be square rooted to get a whole number).
0 likes@JFrog it says the sum of two smaller square numbers. It doesn't say anything about whole numbers. Besides, they are all whole numbers. Which would actually be 2 that would give you 4 and can produce 16 when squared... This question is really worded poorly
0 likesJames Alvarado 2 is not the square of a whole number
0 likesJames Alvarado it’s the square root of 4 those are 2 different things
0 likesJames Alvarado - "sum" means the result of addition. Your line of reasoning would be the product (result of multiplication) of square numbers, not the sum of square numbers.
1 likeFerry Hömig - the phrase "square number" has a specific meaning in mathematics. A "square number", by definition, is the square of an integer. 12 is not a "square number" because there is no integer which squares to 12.
1 likeWasn't poorly worded, it was perfectly concise
0 likesNo,the sentence is complexly worded which does not mean it is badly worded,YOU are the one who is not able to understand
0 likes@swiftkid41 ikr
0 likes@Ferry HömigWell yes but they probably mean a number which can be written as the sum of the squares of two NATURAL numbers
0 likes@Ferry Hömig how else could it be worded
0 likes@Ferry Hömig what you are saying does not alone with the conditions of the question.
0 likes1) What you are doing is taking the root of a number and then squaring it,thats like saying 1+1-1 = 1
2) the question asks for 2 NATURAL numbers, the sum of whose squares result in the square of another natural number.
Ok,really sorry about that last one
That was even more complexly worded than the question
@Nico-v11 R u sure that u still remembered the statement of the qsn when u claimed so? Not meant to mock u or even insult u, yet the case of misinterpretation that u addressed didn't really make any sense to anyone aware of basic English grammar, understood the definition of "square number" and "sum", had experience working out fundamental mathematical qsns. Even the primary school students I've ever assisted won't misinterpreted such a qsn in ur addressed way.
1 like@Paul Shin Im not really understanding the paragraph "Therefore we must have x > 1 and y > 1.
0 likesAre you saying that, because we can't square an irrational number?
I understand the wrong use of the definition "square number", I got that now, but it seems like with your example you're also trying to disprove, that we can represent any natural number by the sum of two squared numbers.
Or did I misunderstand something?
If he was smart he would have realized that the majority of the audience were probably also bad at math.
0 likesReplies (1)
This has almost nothing at all to do with being "bad at math";
0 likesI have studied and passed courses in partial differential equations and numerical approximations of integrals, and I still found this question a bit confusing for a while.
Terribly worded question.
1154 likesReplies (44)
How so?
90 likesDefinitely not terribly worded, but they had thrown a Red Herring in there by clarifying that they are square numbers, that isn't necessary knowledge.
11 likesHow so? It's very clearly written.
73 likesWhen it says "two smaller square numbers", people tend to think of 16, because 4 itself is a square, and 16 is 4*4. It probably should've been worded "two smaller distinct square numbers" or something along those lines.
70 likesEscapeVelocity "sum" 4 + 4 = 8, where 9 + 16 = 25. Also, anyone who's done grade 9 math knows this from that basic 3/4/5 triangle used so often in the Pythagoras theorem.
76 likesKetroc Pythagorean theorem definitely has nothing to do with this lmfao. And it is terribly worded because they never said you had to square the 2 smaller numbers. The question implies that the 2 smaller numbers have a square root
14 likesMisterBinx you either undestand it or you don't. The wording of the question is fine.
55 likes"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
40 likesSo many people in the comments seem to be confused. Let's break this down.
"Which of these square numbers..." -> all the following answers must be square numbers, i.e. the result of one number multiplied against itself (aka its square root). If there had been any NON-square numbers in the answers, like 13 (the sum of 4+9), it could be dismissed immediately.
"...also happens to be the sum..." -> this means that the answer must be the result of at least two other numbers ADDED together.
"...of two smaller square numbers?" -> this means that the answer must be the result of only two other numbers added together. These two numbers are both SMALLER and SQUARE, meaning they are of less value than the answer, and when square-rooted, will also produce an integer (i.e. no decimal places needed to express them).
This, to me, is not a difficult question. But if the person being questioned hasn't had to do any math for a long time, they may be out of practice. This applies to the audience too... though it's pretty disturbing, nonetheless, to see that so many people could fail a grade 8 Pythagorean Theorem (c^2 = a^2 + b^2) question. Add the pressure of being on national television and the chance to win a million dollars at stake, and I think it's understandable why he messed up. Still don't understand why the mob failed, but hey, just more proof for why popularity doesn't make a thing right.
+Cheis This is exactly Pythagorean theorem. The answer is the basic 3/4/5 triangle we've all used a thousand times, which is why you don't even have to figure it out, you can just recall it from memory. It also doesn't imply anything. It clearly says "square number" which by definition is a number which is a square of an integer.
25 likesCheis "Pythagorean theorem definitely had nothing to do with this lmfao."
21 likesNo. Pythagorean theorem has everything to do with this. The IDEA of the theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2, which is exactly what the question was asking (which of these numbers, 16, 25, 36, 49, can be c^2?)
While the Pythagorean Theorem is deeply connected with the question, I would take pause before saying that the question "is exactly the Pythagorean theorem" or that the "Pythagorean theorem has everything to do" with the question.
3 likesAfter all, you can have a right triangle where the hypotenuse has a length of 16, even though 16 is not a correct answer to the given question. Certainly, the whole reason that Pythagorean triples are interesting is because of the Pythagorean theorem (hence the name Pythagorean triples), and certainly, most people who remember the famous 3-4-5 right triangle from geometry (which can be proven to be valid lengths of the sides of a right triangle using the Pythagorean theorem) would know the answer immediately. But I would still not be ready to say that the question is the Pythagorean theorem or has everything to do with it.
You're confused because she gave the answer as 3^2 + 4^2 = 25. Of course 3 is not a square number so you think that it is poorly worded. However, the question is "... the sum of two smaller square numbers." 9 is a square number and 16 is a square number. She should have simply said, "9+16 = 25"
1 likeMisterBinx see: reading comprehension
3 likesKetroc I'm in 7th grade and I know this. We haven't gone over it in school yet.
0 likesMisterBinx the question was worded fine
5 likes+Andrew King want a medal?
1 likeMisterBinx, it's simple. Get a list of square numbers (4,9,16,25,36,49) and look at ABCD in the question asked and see what square numbers you can use to make either ABC or D. 16+9 = 25 therefore B is the correct answer.
6 likesMisterBinx your lack of understanding what you read is terrible
2 likesI've taken differential equations and have never called 25 or 16 "square numbers" in all the college math courses I've taken. I guess I'm ignorant of that. I've taken trig, 4 calculus classes, linear algebra, and more. It could have been worded better.
2 likesKetroc 9th grade? I learned that in 5th...
0 likesCheis Yes it does. 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
0 likesMisterBinx square number is a number that you get when you multiply a number with itself so
0 likes1×1=1
2×2=4
3×3=9
4×4=16
5×5=25
6×6=36
7×7=49
8×8=64
9×9=81
10×10=100
I learned this when I was 13 or younger I'm 20 now can't remember exactly when
Its not terribly worded, the audience and guy didnt know what the definition of a square number is
2 likesbut it says the sum of two smaller square numbers and 4+4=8.............
1 like+Danny B Your point being? 8 is not a square number nor is it in the answer options.
2 likes+MisterBinx
3 likes"I've taken differential equations and have never called 25 or 16 "square numbers" in all the college math courses I've taken. I guess I'm ignorant of that. I've taken trig, 4 calculus classes, linear algebra, and more. It could have been worded better."
Not a good argument for the question being badly worded when the question literally gives the definition of a square number away by saying "Which of these square numbers" and then proceeding to give the answer choices as"16, 25, 36, and 49".
Doesn't give the definition. He still had to figure 1,4, and 9 were square numbers. Probably couldn't because he was confused.
0 likesMisterBinx just muricans.
3 likesIrakli008 don't waste your time they voted trump
7 likesi live in non english speaking country and understood this question immediatly
1 likeguys dont bully him. He just wanted an excuse for getting the question wrong
12 likes"When it says "two smaller square numbers", people tend to think of 16, because 4 itself is a square, and 16 is 4*4."
13 likesWhat the hell? It says THE SUM of two square numbers, not the product. So no, there's no way it could be 16. It took me half a second to get it right, I didn't even have to wait for C and D to appear. As soon as answer B appeared, I know it was the right one. It's not very difficult to do 16+9.
It was horribly phrased instead of saying "Which of these 'squared' numbers...", they said "Which of these 'square' numbers...". All they needed was 1 letter.
1 likeIVI The correct term is square number, not squared number. There was no reason to add a d.
6 likesMaybe a bit unclear question but COME ON. These are grown up people in the audience that probably have all graduated... What the fuck do they do at school?? I dont even speak English natively and it took me maybe 10 sec to figure out what the question meant... And then another 10sec to solve it.
3 likes:D :D :D Pythagorean theorem has everything to do with this... How the hell did you passed primary school (or did you?) ONLY numbers that are SUM of squares of two smaller numbers make the lenght of the longest part in right angle triangle with all sides lenght sin whole numbers...
1 likeBtw I knew its gonna be 25 before she finsihed that question and I am not a native speaker, how the hell is that bad wording?
From that alone, you have either a really bad school, or you just forgot. I think it's the second one...
0 likesmrkv4k Pythagorean Theorem has nothing to do with this. If it was a triangle and they asked to find the hypotenuse then Pythagorean Theorem would but no, it doesn't in this case
0 likesWell, if you don't understand the connection, that doesn't mean there isn't one.... The question literrary means "find the third number of the smallest Pythagorean tripplet"
1 likethat's the point, it's an easy question.
0 likesBullshit. It was so clear. Square which is sum of two other squares. In what universe is that terribly worded?
1 likeenglish is not my native language buteventhough i can unferstand the question. Don't make an excuse
0 likesTarek701, the question couldn't be more precise though. If a person knows the definition of a square number, wording is pretty clear then.
1 likeJust an excuse because you didn't solve that XD
0 likesMaths!
1 likeThank You Phytagoras
0 likesTo be fair, this question was horribly asked..
289 likesReplies (26)
llllllllllama not really
21 likesnot at all
22 likesMelon Ana it was
11 likesleave it to a fucking american to blame the question and not his/her stupidity.
23 likesllllllllllama it was
0 likesSo unfair of her to use plain english?
7 likesI am actually from Czech Republic and english is not my first language.
2 likesAnd how am i supposed to interpret this question? Am i looking for same numbers, or do they have to be different?
Are they already to be cubed or am i looking for prime numbers?
Not american, not defending american stupidity, stupid ppl are everywhere, in America there is just a lot of people and i am in uni, so i guess jokes on you.
square numbers are... well 16 is a square number because it's 4². the question is, which square number is also the sum of two smaller square numbers (as it's not specified, they can be the same or not). in this case, the answer is 25, because:
3 likes16+9=25 & 16=4², 9=3²
the question is not horribly asked if you are a native speaker and visited 5th grade maths (maybe 7th).
(i'm german, so... it's also well asked if your english is well enough and you know every word in the question)
Fine. I'll explain why it was an ok question. According to wikipedia, the definition of a square number is as follows:
4 likesIn mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it can be written as 3 × 3.
"Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
Let's list all the square numbers from 0-49, since 49 is the highest number from the possible answers
0^2=0 1^2=1, 2^2=4, 3^2=9, 4^2=16, 5^2=25, 6^2=36, 7^2=49
Using the process of elimination we can eliminate 49, because it has to be the sum of two smaller square numbers therefore 49+0=49 is not valid, and so on. 36 and 16 can be eliminated similarly.
Nowhere does it say the numbers that we add together has to be different from eachother, but they don't have to as 8,12,5, 18 nor 24,5 is a square number. Therefore we end up with the answer, B: 25.
Good luck with your academic degree.
Jegvilhavespamnu couldn't have said it better myself
5 likesNot really, I got it right away. Easy question
10 likesllllllllllama tell us how it should be worded to be easier to understand for you?
2 likesRKBock im italian and i got the answer in the thumbnail
0 likesNon Rompere Ddddffd You want a cookie?
1 likeBruce Wayne id love one actually
0 likesHow are you supposed to interpret this question? Easy. Are you looking for the same numbers or do they have to be different? Either as long as they're square numbers! Are you looking for cubed or prime numbers? Again another stupid question from you as the question says which of these SQUARE numbers add up to make a SQUARE number, so you're looking for SQUARE numbers. Now to show how stupid you are as a uni student here's it broken down. A square number is a number where 2 numbers have been multiplied by themselves. The answers are 4 square numbers. The question wants the sum of TWO SQUARE numbers that are smaller than the 4 possible answers. A sum is 2 numbers which have been added together. Here's some smaller square numbers: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49. Now you have to work out which TWO of those add together to make one of the answers. 9+16 = 25
1 like***** explain. they fucking aren't.
1 like***** shit, you're right. however, your thinking outside of the box is an example of your own intelligence making you ignorant. the question has only one answer that would be seen by everyone as correct. don't overthink it.
1 like***** are you all right there? you appear to be very annoyed at something. are you trying to validate yourself by demeaning other people on the internet? at the moment, it's no longer about you telling me i'm wrong, and more about you just trying to be better than me. i don't want to converse with people like you, who can't prove to themselves that they're worth something without trying to make everyone else seem like trash. also, i'm not a woman.
2 likesthread muted
*****
1 likeI think it's about time you went back to an English speaking college, not a Spanish speaking one, then they might be able to teach you Maths correctly. I seriously doubt that though. You can't teach planks.
Square Number definition: The product of a number multiplied by itself
1 likeExamples of Squares:
1x1 = 1
2x2 = 4
3x3 = 9
4x4 = 16
5x5 = 25
Integer definition: Any number that is not a fraction
Examples of Integers:
-200, -477, -8096, 0, 1, 373, 99, 5302, 1000...
*grabs popcorn*
0 likesSantiago Ferrari you're stupid there's only one right answer since you can use only two smaller square numbers than what the answer is. It says it in the question.
1 like+Santiago Ferrari as Daniel already stated a square number is a number multiplied by itself, like 20x20= 400. And the question asked is what number is a square number that can be made using 2 other square numbers so 25 is correct because 5x5=25 (so it's a square number) 4x4 + 3x3 (2 other square numbers) = 25.
2 likesAlso if your kid said they were all right your kid is very wrong UNLESS he said that they were all square numbers than he is right YOU are stupid and used that information incorrectly.
0 likesNot at all people, it was perfectly asked if you are familiar with math. If not, fuck you, you should be. It's not too late to learn.
1 likeSimply it was a Pythagoras triangle
0 likes.
708 likesReplies (38)
√7, 3 and 16 is also a pythagoran triplet. ;)
6 likes@Imtotallydiggingthis 3 and √7 are not perfect square numbers tho lol ==
38 likesWho said anything about perfect square?
19 likesthere is not such term as "perfect square number".
19 likesthere is only a "square number" and there is already a definition of it.
That would be a very strange nomenclature then. Square is when you take something to the power of two, and a number is any number, not just the natural numbers. So if the meaning of those words change when you combine them, then the English language failed to make sense at that point.
4 likesNot my fault they named it like that. I do agree it is weird, but doesn't change the fact that question was properly asked.
20 likes@Imtotallydiggingthis maybe they mean natural numbers?
2 likesObviously they meant that, and apparantly English makes no sense so the way they stated it seems to work after all.
3 likesthe important thing is that √7, 3 and 16 is not a pythagoran triplet as those three numbers are not all natural numbers.
7 likesnatural numbers are overrated.
1 likeaccording to wikipedia they got the question right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
1 likepersonally I have only encountered square numbers as something that can be created by multiplying a natural number "with itself". I guess you can make a difference between a square number and a squared number.
That's the thing I've got beef with. It's stupid that the word number means completely different things in those two cases.
0 likeseven if that would be the case, so what?
0 likesIt is not completely different. Just like a blue car means something different than a red car, but not completely different. A prime number is something different than an irrational number. If we could not categorize things, and numbers, it would be very annoying to communicate :P.
0 likesPythagorean triplet... interesting.
0 likesGood job at math now try English
4 likesJust genuinely curious if I'm overlooking something, but wouldn't 0^2 + 4^2 = 16? Is that not why the audience said A?
3 likes@Syn Celestial oh damn u right
0 likes@scoob All of the solutions are right going like that..
1 likeBut 2^2×2^2=2^4
0 likes@D D
0 likesReally? There is nothing like perfect square? What is wrong with your education system?
@A random marvel fan - you need to learn how to read.
0 likesI never said there is nothing like "perfect square". I said there is nothing like "perfect square number". Big difference.
Perfect square is an actual mathematical term and has a definition in english vocabulary. Perfect square number is not a mathematical term.
Imagine if we, instead of "root", started saying "root number". Don't you think that you would sound idiotic? It's quite important to use proper terminology in mathematics, because sometimes some terms are pretty similar and can make a confusion when people use those terms, yet they are not familiar with it.
Thanks for that quick maths
0 likesSmaller square numbers? Serious?
1 likeI think smaller square numbers is 1^2=1, 2^2=4.
1+4=5;
5^2=25.
There is 3^2+4^2=5^2=25, sic!
And NO SMALLER square numbers:
3^2=9, 4^2=16.
Hi from Russia! And russian educations! LOL
but 2^2 + 2^2 = 4^2
0 likesThe show's questions are normally geared towards questions of memory and not solving puzzles... That said, the question was not hard given the level it came at.
0 likesThumbs up OP! I take it you're not an American? 😂
0 likes5, 12, and 13 too
0 likes@Imtotallydiggingthis Wait let me do the math quick:
0 likesroot 7 squared + 3 squared=16 squared.
7+9=256
16≠256
Therefore root 7, 3 and 16 are not pythagorean triplets as they do not satisfy Pythogorean theorem?(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
@Syn Celestial Read the question, 'sum of two smaller square numbers'. 4^2 is not smaller than 16.
0 likes@Daniel Rinnunga
0 likesI guess I stated it in a misleading way. 16 has already been squared. I said 16 because that was the option in the question. Bu the number in the triplet would be 4 of course. (√7)^2 + 3^2 = 4^2
@Imtotallydiggingthis Oh, yeah. No worries. I should've seen it myself.
0 likesYes
0 likesYou have 666 likes
1 likePythagorahas would die again if he saw the audience's answer.
0 likesWe learned that last month too
1 likeChamp of Champs OHHHHH I GET IT , I'M SO STUPID FOR JUST NOW REALIZING ITS PATHAGOREAN. A squared + B squared= C squared
0 likesImtotallydiggingthis and D D - the terminology "square number" is very old. It dates back to Euclid. It comes from a time when the only things that were considered to be numbers were the positive integers. So in Euclid's time "square of a number" meant what we would say as "square of a positive integer" today.
0 likesNowadays, our conception of number is much broader than Euclid's, but the terminology remains used the way Euclid used it, since the terminology is pointless if we expand it to our modern notion of "number" (every complex number is the square of some complex number, for example).
Bruh i thought it was talking about shapes
0 likesHonestly! the question is ambiguous!
0 likesSkill issue tbh
0 likesOk, thanks to a comments I did solve this but damm, it was not an easy question to me, im not sharp in maths, I can get sharp but still im to idiot to get this at first sight.
0 likesindian and asian people- tell me your reactions 😆😆
1 like4th grade Indians would be able to solve it correctly if time isn't a restriction, and they said knowing algebra wouldn't help you out in real life.
1 likeI see some slow calling lmao
0 likesThe question is pretty clunky. Blows my mind that the audience was that bad though.
0 likeshe just like me fr
0 likesTHAT QUESTION HURT TO READ,
0 likesI got it right :)
0 likesWhat are they clapping for? For failing him with some middle school math?
0 likesAll are clapping by making themselves fool 🤣
0 likesPerhaps absent that day in 4th grade ?
0 likescommon pythagrous number.
0 likesPythagoras die again in heaven after watching this clip,
0 likesBruh it is kind of america moment
0 likesThey tricked him with that whole AOL crap too.. and take your time..Pfftt🙄 they were steering him to lose
0 likesAudience 🚬🥴🍷
0 likes25 = 16 + 9
2 likesFor those who didn't get it.
I think audience is just trolling
0 likesHe probably flunked in maths in elementary school but at least he will forever think he lost 15 cents instead of 15000 dollars
0 likesLol audience 🤣
0 likesWhy is the audience applauding? 😂
0 likesIt's like they're trolling themselves.
WTF.... That's basic Pythagoras.... Didn't even needed to think for it 🗿
0 likesIt's funny how the question could simply be.
0 likesWhich of these numbers is the sum of two square numbers?
Replies (1)
The all answers would be correct.
0 likesIt's a set up 🤣🤣🤣 cos why the hell are the audience clapping so cheerfully?
0 likessorry but if you think this question even have any difficulty and could not figure out in 5 seconds…it’s an IQ problem, not even about math😅
0 likesIn the defense of the audience/player, the question was i think purposely adjusted to mistaken sum with product
0 likesOuch.
0 likesKya kiya yaar 15000$ dooba diya yaar
0 likesSimply quit kardetta . Samajh gaya "Lalach".
Here lies the con of democracy
2 likes...I am shocked
0 likesits 4^2 + 3^2 = 5^2, knows that from the pithagorem infirom or whatever its called
0 likeshe didn't lose 15k he lost 14k
0 likesReplies (1)
If he had answered correctly, he would have $16,000. Because he was wrong he only won $1,000. That’s $15,000.
0 likesThe answer is B, because 16 + 9 (both square numbers) are equal to 25.
0 likesPretty sure its 25.
0 likesNot a good day for Wake Forest.
0 likesI mean, just how stupid were the people in the audience that only 30% knew the answer and this is such an easy question, WOW. He could have just squared the first 5 numbers and he would have figured it out.
0 likesReplies (1)
It's not as easy as you seem to think to be able to process this kind of question under a lot of pressure.
0 likesAnd I am saying this as someone who has juggled partial differential equations and numerical approximations of integrals at university for several years, and currently work with Maxwell's Equations in a course on electromagnetic field theory (which by the way uses the Pythagorean Theorem all the time, since it involves a lot of distances between charges - in fact, it involves the Pythagorean Theorem INSIDE INTEGRALS), so I am obviously very good at math, and I still felt somewhat confused by this question for a while.
That's not such an easy question under pressure....
0 likesReplies (1)
The 72% were under significantly less pressure than the dude.
0 likesthats questions free omg
0 likes50% got this question wrong? SMH...
0 likesShit, My man really had faith in americans
0 likesB: 25 is 16 plus 9, both are squares.
0 likesIt's not knowing how to read.
0 likesPeople think 16 because 4 x 4 and 4 is a squared number. They assume the wrong question
!when knowing math costs you to die like your in hell , but i just take the stress and i let the machine do the math. " boy your going to get it. dude---------
0 likes\
2)a good wake up feelng . like had dreams about monkeys. it's like not a great thing , but like dude what if there were girl monkeys?! would you kiss them? if they dropped a knee and like put out a hand , i'd try to teach them to dance. "tap your feet" and they'd be like in our common language. " i just got hands and they'd be clapping and I'd be stomping on a rock and then we'd have music and then the party went. huhuhuhuhuhu. as the wind passes overhead and then we all look up and there is a giant rock passing over head and then we all go silent and go uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. " a sudden collapse of trees and we would have forests or rain anymore. , but luckily we all went to check up on the crater and turned into dinosaurs , cause they were like way after , that humans wern't worth it and it was so much better, but we checked up on it and found out it wasn't actually dinosaurs and you just started to peel and were actually a snake. There was this one guy who really hated us way in the future called" hell snack" and he was like "your the 15th victim of my high lvl attack! and I was pulling shedding monkeys out of the fire that this what I can recall as the santa clause of the santi maria. Our language changed and we were suprised they didn't understand us. It was all in the brain chemistry of that huge rock that fell from the sky. Global warming never happened because it left a huge crater in the ocean and we all went to it's jaccuzi - lw
(1)when knowing math costs you to die like your in hell , but i just take the stress and i let the machine do the math. " boy your going to get it. dude i got this thing, so long ago and we were like fly to singapore! i really love that one~. o mi to fo nan mo guan gong. rocks don't fail when they fall gemmed super computers do.
Americans Maths is next level hat's of to them. #superpower 😂😂😂
0 likesCogito ergo sum, or something like that! Haha...
0 likesAnd they say women don’t know math lmao
0 likesCan anyone explain what does it mean, "the sum of two smaller square numbers?".
0 likesReplies (2)
Two numbers, both of which are squared, that added together, make another square number.
1 likeSquare 1 + square 2 = square 3.
@Big blue Button man thank you.
0 likesthis also how democracy works, the people elect the wrong person confidently
0 likesAsk the audience a maths question lol ... Below par
0 likesEnglish version is not as dramatic as the Indian version of the show.
0 likesLesson learned? He will fit right in with 50% of the population.
0 likesnah i didnt understand the question i swear it was 16 :'( i thought it was the product not sum
0 likesGlad I'm Indian
0 likesNot really a question you should be asking the audience.. honestly
0 likesAsk the audience is reliable on pop culture stuff
Answer - B
0 likes25= (4)²+(3)²
In India a second grader would know this lol. Not exaggerating
2 likesReplies (2)
For which caste ？
1 like@Yun uhmm... Anyone who ain't sc or st
1 likeTf is wrong with the audience?!?
1 likeOmg this was easy, Pythagorean theorem
0 likesits 25..... Its so obvious
0 likesNoice.
0 likesAmerica moment
0 likesme:B
1 likewait i’m correct! yay
at least he got 1,000 dollars better than 0 dollar
because 1,000>0
The answer was 25
1 likeIt was from 3^2(9)+4^2(16), give a results of 25
Big sad 3^2 +4^2 = 5^2 know it by memory bois it might win you 16k
0 likesThe question is kinda confusing tho
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
1 likePythogaran triplet
1 likeisn’t 36 also valid. 3 to the power of 2 plus 5 to the power of 2?
0 likesReplies (1)
Um, 9 + 25 = ?
0 likesMeanwhile Asians : this doesn't require even 0.1% of my powers
0 likesReplies (1)
Ye I did it in 5 sec.
0 likesIf the question said squared instead of square it would’ve been much easier to spot
0 likesThe most basic right triangle???
0 likesDumbing down of society is working
0 likesI didn't understand the question btw
1 likeI instantly found 25 in like 5 seconds. 25 is the answer because 16 and 9 are the smaller square numbers. 16 + 9 = 25
1 likeFor all the smug math experts here, the audience is not bad at math at all.
0 likesThey are bad at english. The sentence is confusing and i had to read it five times to know what it ment.
If it was written in x y = z format (you know, actual language math uses) most would know.
but 8+8 = 16 or is it 42?
0 likeshe was right though, because all of the answers are true as 0 is a square number and 4x4 + 0x0 = 16
1 likeReplies (1)
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because a number cannot be smaller than itself, you cannot derive the answer by summing it with 0.
1 likeI think he messed up sum and multiply
0 likesAudience was not so smart.
0 likes25 is square number, 16+9, there 16 and 9 both also square number and there sum is 25.
0 likes3 square + 4 square = 25
1 likeTbh the way the question was pharsed is very confusing, I dont blame the contestsntas
0 likesIt took me a while to work this out in my head because I was using the same “smaller square number”. I got it eventually but it wasn’t the easiest question in the world.
0 likesjust simple Pythagorean theorem lol
0 likesReplies (1)
I work with the Pythagorean Theorem in 3 dimensions all the time, even in the forms of VARIABLE factors, and I still found this question a bit confusing for a while.
0 likesHow do you explain that?
Easy,it's 25,3²+4²=5²
0 likesI am confident most people bashing the dude would fail too.
1 likeMath problem is trivial compared to decoding that word salad under pressure of being in front of live audience and recorded to be shown on TV.
Replies (4)
Problem isn't the dude under pressure getting it wrong but more than 70% of the audience not knowing basic math.
0 likes@mambda Comments bash both, not just the audience.
0 likesThese recording sessions are long, everyone is tired and this is a high effort question in a 0 reward/penalty game (for the audience). How many of them do you think seriously looked for solution before they were polled? Now how many of them do you think only started doing so when they were asked (and pressure got on). The answer 16 really makes it seem like people missed the "square" in "square numbers" , think 16 = 8 + 8. Again, too much irrelevant info in the question.
Also, as I said, actual math in this problem is trivial. Here's a similar problem, that will trip up even more people for exact same reasons:
What is the 2nd number that is a sum of 2 prime number and is divisible by 3? (by the way, if I gave a multiple options, I wouldn't make it as easy)
Could you do it in your head? In how long?
What are the difficulties of this problem? It's not basic math, is it?
@Shizlgizl All the information in the question is relevant. Dropping any part of it would allow multiple answers.
0 likesYour question is poorly worded. Better would be: "What is the 2nd smallest number that is the sum of two primes and is divisible by 3?"And yes, I can do this in my head. Also giving multiple options would in fact make it easier. The answer is 9 (6 would be the smallest). Took about a minute.
Square numbers are significantly more trivial than primes and divisibility by a specific number.
@mambda Core of original question: "Which of these numbers is the sum of 2 square numbers?".
0 likesAbout twice shorter than original - nothing lost.
Much like squares, you (or at least I) had to memorize some primes (enough to answer my question). Much like squares you can find primes by doing trivial math if you don't remember them (I suspect this and getting caught off guard are the 2 biggest reasons for the mass flop).
The point of my question was to highlight that the difficulty of both questions doesn't stem from math. Every single person in that studio was capable of solving the math portion of the question (which is multiplication and adding/subtracting a number). If you map out how you solved the original problem and my problem you'll notice they are identical problems (in terms of steps and tools required to solve and available mental shortcuts).
Keep in mind any mental shortcuts you take and extra steps you'd take if you didn't have those shortcuts.
For example: knowing multiplication table is not the same as knowing squares of each number or just knowing squares square numbers on their own.
If you remember 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36... (bypassing the number a square number originates from) you breeze through the question.
If you remember squares of each number 1²=1, 2²=4 , 3²=9... it will take a bit longer as you're going through 1 extra step to get to a square.
Going through multiplication table has the more extra steps to a square number.
Going through actual multiplication is crazy amount of arithmetic within the scope of this problem. Doubt anybody had to do it, but just to illustrate the potential layers to solving a problem.
These seemingly insignificant differences, each adds an extra step to a ladder which you get thrown off of when you lose focus. If you don't do math in your job the answer is not immediately obvious and you have to climb this ladder multiple times (trial and error)
i knew it was 25
0 likesMURICA !! 👍
0 likesI dont even understand the question
0 likesI actually don’t know what it is. What is it?
0 likesBruh I’m litterally ten years old, and it took me less than 20 seconds to figure it out
0 likesYeah I don’t get it. Square numbers? So like, each number should have a square root symbol above it? And the sum, like, =16 or = 4? This question is not worded very well.
0 likesReplies (2)
The question is worded fine. Please search online for the term “square number.” It has a specific meaning in math.
2 likes@Peter
1 likeKnowing the Pythagorean Theorem and basic trigonometry definitely help in understanding this problem. Also knowing perfect squares is a must. The only thing that threw me off when I first watched this video was the term "square number." I was able to get the answer anyways, but I had to think about it for a few minutes. Once I understood that square numbers are perfect squares, I knew the answer right away.
Perfect squares are something that most people learn about in elementary school or early middle school. You won't be reviewing this in college unless you study pure mathematics, especially number theory. I studied computer science for my Bachelor's degree and later returned to college to get my Master's in finance. I never studied perfect squares in my math classes. Later I bought a textbook on basic mathematics to refresh my skills and fill in some gaps I knew I had, and I learned about perfect squares there.
nah i dont think it was the problem, more like the wording of the question that tripped some of us off
0 likesReplies (1)
How though? Genuinely asking since I'm not a native english speaker.
0 likes2x2 =4, 4x4 =16 He was Correct and so was the Audience...Yes 25 was correct too !...Maybe I Didn't Understand the Question
0 likesReplies (1)
4x4 = 16 would be the product of two squares. The question specifically asks for the SUM of two squares. For a^2+b^2=16 no solutions for a and b (in the integers) exist.
0 likesLiterally embarrassing, any of the answers would be correct if you simply add their square root to 0²
0 likesclapping audience
0 likes💀
0 likesLol.... so no one knows math
0 likes😂 I feel bad for the guy! Unless you had a very thorough 6th grade teacher. You would not have understood the question😅
0 likesThe question is meant to confuse you. And is a baited one at that.
The square root and squared numbers reflect off primes. Unless you had a math degree and 5 to 10 minutes to sit and figure it out. There would be no way to understand this.
I would even say only 2% to 10% of the audience understood this question. The rest just guessed with no clue.
Replies (1)
I mean, if you got to pre-calc, you would be well-equipped for this.
0 likesI'm good at math, but I had to pause the video, because the question is worded in a way that makes it hard.
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
0 likesI think the audience mixed up their "sums" and "products".
1 likeReplies (4)
I think the audience doesn't know what "sums" and "products" mean.
2 likes@LaughingStock55 I have studied and passed multiple math courses in an actual engineering physics program at university, and I still found this question a bit confusing for a few minutes.
0 likesAnd I am saying this as someone who constantly juggles the Pythagorean Theorem around in 3D space, and even has the Pythagorean Theorem in the denominator as a VARIABLE inside integrals, so I am probably significantly better at the Pythagorean Theorem than most people in here, probably including you as well.
@Peter
0 likesYou have a hard time with this question because you either forgot about perfect squares, or you never learned about them in the first place.
I can guarantee that I know the Pythagorean Theorem much better than you because you have consistently made inaccurate comments about this problem the moment you first starting commenting on this video.
Take a hint: don't assume you know more than someone if you don't even know who they are.
@Peter , not sure what your seeming obsession with the Pythagorean Theorem in proving your knowledge. I assume since the video question references squares, but your comments never actually utilizes it this way, it's always, "I know my Pythagorean Theorem," which does nothing to prove your skill or knowledge. If you want to show your math prowess in general, there are a large number of other areas you could present. For me, a brain teaser was working with irreducible polynomials in finite fields when learning coding theory and basics of cryptography. Though, this is still quite basic compared to others in mathematics (I'm far more an engineer than a mathematician). It is indeed good advice to assume you're not the smartest in the room. Especially if you're going to attempt an argument by authority and say you are right because you know more... that isn't how the world works.
0 likesWith that said, the question confused me for a second, though I think largely because the cobwebs had to be cleared away first, haha. These days my mathematics use is largely computer based purely from an efficiency standpoint... but apparently some parts of my memory have faded. Though, the question as presented is largely just a brute force one considering there are only a few squares less than each of the numbers given for summation testing and/or subtraction, no fancy math required. I simply did 25 - 16 = 9 which is a square and there's your answer.
9 + 16 is 3^2 + 4^2 = 25. It’s not an easy question, it’s asked in a weird way and requires you to think how it adds up.
2 likesReplies (3)
"it’s asked in a weird way" how so?
0 likes@mambda If you have forgotten the exact definition of the term "square number", then this question will be very confusing no matter how good you are at maths.
0 likes@Peter bruh
0 likesImagine u said 36. It’s also true because 3^2+5^2 = 6^2 but it wasn’t B
0 likesReplies (1)
3^2 + 5^2 = 9 + 25 = 34
0 likestrigonomotry teachers keep hammering it dowwn our throats, the 3,4,5 triangle of pythagoras. 3^2 (9) + 4^2 (16) = 5^2 (25)
0 likesThe question is worded kind of tricky
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
0 likes15k elementary school question.
0 likes3²+4²=5² triangle
0 likes50 or 60 yrs since I was in a math class. Is there an easier way than just starting out one number at a time, squaring it, then subtracting it from each of the 4 answers and then seeing if the resulting "difference" is a perfect square?I guess I'm asking if there is a formula. The way I did it would take forever if it was a large number, lol.
0 likesAnd fir all the people with negative comments about AMERICANS, we're a combination of every country in the world! Perhaps YOUR country helped dumb us down!
Jee aspire be like mai batata hai
0 likesWhere did they get audience?
0 likesthat’s a bad way to word that question, i thought it was A and even after she explained it i still don’t know what it’s asking
0 likesReplies (2)
25 is a square number and is the sum of two smaller square numbers: 9 and 16.
1 likeHow is it badly worded? It's very precise.
2 likesAnd guess what.. These same people vote. This is why we can't have nice things folks.
0 likes2:20 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0 likesthis is such an easy question it is 4^2 + 3^2
0 likesI think the wording of the sentence at the end is a little wrong or maybe just tricky? Which of these square numbers 16,25,36,49 also are sums of two SMALLER square numbers which may lead to only think of numbers like 4 and 9. Not 4^2 or 3^2. 4^2 is a square number being squared and 3 is not a square number… it is just a number being squared. This is probably what threw most people off. At least for me and that’s why I believe the question was a little faulty tbh. That’s my opinion. Maybe the 16 being one of the answers threw me off tbh since I’m trying to think of a smaller square number than that one but it should be a smaller square number than the answer which is 25
1 likeReplies (4)
Yeah this question was written incorrectly, it should say “smaller squared number”.
0 likesJust relatively tricky, you can write 25 = 16 + 9, where 16 = 4^2 and 9 = 3^2, so 16 and 9 are square numbers, thus 25 is the sum of 2 smaller square numbers and therefore the wording is correct.
0 likesNeither. 9 and 16 are square numbers because their roots are integers. What their roots actually are is irrelevant as long as those are integers. Nothing wrong with the question.
0 likes@Broccoli_32 no, a square number and perfect square are the same thing (a square of an integer). A "squared number" would be the square of any number you want (integer, transcendental number or quaternion... doesn't matter).
0 likesI am not that good at math myself...but basic Pythagoras theorem example????... 😅this is just plain cruelty
0 likes"Its A because 9 + 4 is 16. USA NUMBER #1!"
1 likeReplies (1)
It's D because I say it's D.
0 likesA)16 which is 4*2
0 likesB)25 which is 5*2
C)36 which is 6*2
D)49 which is 7*2
However
4x4 + 3x3=25
16+9=25
So A was incorrect but a would have to be
2x2 +3x4=16
But C is also incorrect cause
6×3 + 2x9=36
But D can also be wrong
7x2 + 7x5=49
So all.options are wrong or I can be overthinking
And these are the people who get to vote
0 likesAll four are correct as long as u consider 0 a number
0 likesReplies (1)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two “smaller” square numbers. Because a number cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot be derived from the sum of itself and 0. The only correct answer is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
0 likesQuestions like this aren’t even about the math, they are just super ambiguous with what they are asking for
0 likesReplies (4)
The question is very specific if you actually know the meaning of “square number”.
2 likesThese questions can be ambiguous at times but this one absolutely wasn't lol. "Which square numbers add up to another square number" is a pretty straightforward question
0 likes@LaughingStock55 The statement "nobody in the audience failed to be not absent when the contestant did not give the opposite of the incorrect answer" is very specific as well, but I am pretty sure that you wouldn't be able to interpret it in just a few seconds.
0 likesAnd that is basically how a lot of people in here - including actual engineering students, myself included - feel when they read the question in this video for the first time:
they are able to answer it, but they need time to interpret it correctly.
@Peter
0 likesThe question in the video is straightforward and concise. Your counterexample is intentionally written to be difficult to follow, i.e. not valid.
Tf why they clapping 🤣 paid audience or what
2 likes😂😂 Seriously ......... thats really dumb.
0 likesmathmaticians screaming b 5 seconds into the video
0 likesReplies (1)
Only if they remember all the special right triangles;
0 likesand mathematicians do actually in fact forget this kind of stuff if they don't review it.
Ngl, I thought it was A as well
1 likeIsn't 16 the sum of 2^2 and 2^2 ?
0 likesReplies (2)
2^2 + 2^2 = 4 + 4 = 8
0 likes@LaughingStock55 🤣 My bad
0 likesKbc have copyright of this show 😅
0 likesSeriously? The whole audience knows nothing about basic math also?
0 likes𝙾𝚔𝚊𝚢, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚑𝚘𝚠?
0 likesIsn't 5squared plus 3 squared 36 which is six squared??
0 likesReplies (1)
5 squared plus 3 squared is 25 + 9, which equals 34, not 36.
1 likeAmerican education
0 likes1:30 what's AOL?
0 likesI would have said 16
0 likesTf did he get this wrong.. My asian bro who is 10 got it right in under 45 seconds
0 likesLet be honest the question was framed poorly. But that's the point of the game, since money is involved
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
0 likesThe problem needs to say "positive integers." It not, every answer is correct.
0 likesReplies (1)
No, it doesn't. The term "square number" is by definition the square of an integer (same meaning as "perfect square").
1 likeElementary grade math
0 likesEasy.
0 likes6 - 1
0 likes9 - 4
heh pitagoras equation
1 likeITS 25
0 likes9+16 is 25
0 likesSo why not 4 square + 0 square... It isn't mentioned explicitly to use Pythagoras
0 likesReplies (1)
4 squared + 0 squared is 16 + 0 = 16.
0 likesThe question specifies that the answer must be the sum of two "smaller" square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot equal 16 + 0.
3 4 5 triangle :(
0 likesmajority is not always right
0 likesI think the wording was effed up.
0 likesBro. I got it wrong too lmao I was feeling so smart too.
0 likesFor gods sake its 25 16+9
0 likes3-4-5
0 likesdude....... i mean what..........
0 likesonly if 0 is not a square number, otherwise 16 = 4^2 + 0^2
0 likesReplies (1)
Why so many people don't read the question carefully? It says, a sum of two SMALLER square numbers. 16 is not smaller than itself.
1 like16 can also be the answer :(
0 likesQuestion didn't say two different square number
Replies (4)
The question said "two smaller square numbers".
1 like16 cannot be the answer because it cannot be smaller than itself.
You're wrong. It can't be 16.
0 likesCurious to see your solution for 2n^2=16 (n being an integer obviously).
0 likes@relaxpayourincometax they're specifically asking for too squares smaller than their sum. So 0^2 is not an option.
1 likeWhy is everyone in the comments acting like that was a simple problem… I thought 16 too. I thought she meant
0 likes√16 = 4 and √4 = 2
No other answer is like that she should’ve said what numbers can create a pothagorean theorem
Replies (1)
It is a simple problem if you know the terminology.
0 likesPythagorean
0 likes25 as 4^2+3^2=16+9=25
1 likeMathS
0 likesAnd the irony is english people called us illiterate😂😂😂
0 likesReplies (4)
When? 100 years ago?
0 likes@Ted Unguent no even today they are like you indians are poor and uneducated lives in slum i am like you got your all money from india
0 likes@Nitin Patel "Like you?" What are you talking about? What am I like?
0 likes@Ted Unguent he meant , most of the western dudes call Indians dumb ,of course it declined in the recent years , but living western country , I can tell you there is still that mentality in people
0 likesthe question is just constructed in a very fucked uo way lol
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
1 likeMericaa!!!!
0 likesI don't know why they bother with the 'ask the audience' option in America. It's a complete waste of time.
0 likesThe question could be interpreted two ways. This is why standardized tests suck.
0 likesReplies (1)
There is only one way to interpret the question if you actually know what it is asking.
2 likesPythagoras watching from heaven: pathetic
1 likeThe answer is (3)^2+(4)^2=25
this video was posted before i was born 💀
0 likesReplies (2)
Go nd study kiddo
0 likesok sir
0 likes3 squared is 9 and four squares is 16 = 16 +9 = 25 which is why 25 is the answer
0 likeslol i do a maths degree and said 16
1 likeReplies (4)
I guess number theory isn't your speciality.
1 like@The_Other_Cartographer calculus >>>>
0 likes@Lippy And Kitty Msp Real analysis >Calculus
1 like@The_Other_Cartographer omg no that’s criminal
0 likesLadies and gentlemen. We just seen how bad american education is; not because the gentleman didnt know the answer; but most people from audiance didnt know it as well.
0 likesI was confused. I know how to do math, but I thought that the 2 smaller square numbers was 2+2=4 ---- 2×2= 4 ---- 4×4= 16
0 likesOh come on it was not that difficult
0 likesGive yourselves a pat on the back audience 👏 you didn’t know it either, shocking how many didn’t know basic maths. Make America clever again.
1 likeReplies (1)
I mean make America clever.
1 likeHow did half of the audience get this wrong? I've lost faith in America.
0 likesYeah, it does take a minute or two to think about it. 4 + 9 = 13❌, 9 + 16 = 25✅
0 likes25 = 16 + 9 = 4^2 + 3^2
0 likesIf you hash it out with the other numbers, it gets messy quickly.
ANS IS 25
0 likestook me 5min to understand the question and 5 min to solve it
0 likessquare of 3= 9
square of 4= 16
ans=25
man was definitely under pressure
3^2+4^2=5^2
0 likesI’m frickin 11 and I figured it out in 10 seconds
0 likes3 4 5 triangle.
0 likesWTF does that even mean? :/
0 likeswhat was a very badly worded question. I though it was asking which number is the sum of its 2 times its square root: none of them, wtf lol
0 likesReplies (2)
Just because you thought that doesn't mean the question is badly worded. Mathematically speaking it's completely correct and precise. At no point it even mentions the square root of the possible answers.
0 likes@mambda fair enough ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
0 likesCorrect: B(16+9 = 25)
0 likesHonestly this question is set so dumb it is not even surprising he did not know.
0 likesReplies (1)
How is the question dumb?
0 likesUS education for you
0 likesThis is easy… like come on…
0 likesIt’s literally a^2+b^2=c^2
0 likesReplies (1)
Only if you remember what "square number" means.
0 likesIf you have forgotten that term, then this question will be confusing no matter how skilled you are at math.
3²+4²=5²
0 likesall these boomers getting it wrong yet complaining common core isnt teaching math skills
0 likeseasy
0 likesJim Halpert
0 likesDidn't specify integers though
1 likeReplies (3)
A "square number" is a whole number by definition. Look it up.
1 like@LaughingStock55 *a square of a whole number
0 likes(you're right obviously, just semantics)
@mambda
0 likesI think it's just a logical thing that goes like this:
If the square of a whole number is a whole number, and a square number equals the square of a whole number, then a square number is a whole number.
It's like saying a duck is a duck is a duck.
3, 4, 5 triangle
0 likesHe didn't have the advantage of pausing the video, so I give him credit for doing his best. It took me about 3 minutes to come up with the answer on my own. If I were him I would have probably used more lifelines. At the end of the day, you want to gain as much as you can even if you don't win a million. They need to bring this show back.
1 likeBro was not able to do such a simple problem. I wonder what he'll do in JEE Advanced Exam🙏
1 likewell fuck..i got the right answer but I figured it out the wrong way..
0 likesI thought of the correct answer too by accident, but originally i thought :
1^2 + 2^2 = 5.
the square of 25 is 5.
what did i miss/confuse?
Replies (1)
Confusion 😅. Your sum must equal 25
0 likesThat was such a weird way to phrase that question. Not surprised he missed it
9 likesReplies (4)
it isn't, mathematically it's a perfectly sound question
3 likesIt is a rudimentary question.
0 likesHow would you have phrased it differently?
@JuanHuangWonOneYuanOnce which of these square numbers happens to be the sum of two different square numbers ?
1 like@kwikythats barely different and in a way that doesnt matter
0 likesif you dont know what square numbers are you arent getting the question regardless
To be fair the question isnt worded super clearly either
0 likesReplies (3)
What's not clear about the question? I'm not a native speaker and found it to be precise and easy to comprehend.
0 likesI mean I knew it was 25, but the way its written makes it seem like its asking for two of the same square numbers. Thats not the case of course
0 likes@Nick.Karm how? I don't see how it does that at all.
0 likesUh did this guy ever like pass sixth grade
0 likes16 + 9 = 26..
0 likes16+9=25
1 like🗿
0 likesTo be fair, wtf was the question worded like that? Could’ve simply said “what number is the sum of two squared numbers”
1 likeReplies (6)
Yeah, it was a pretty weird question - I have been exposed to the Pythagorean Theorem in different forms for almost 30 years throughout my math career, and I still found this question kind of confusing.
2 likes@Peter same, I kept thinking it was 16 until I realized what it was asking lmao
0 likesA "square number" is different than a "squared" number.
0 likesIn the expression 2^2, the number 2 is the squared number. The solution 4 is a square number.
“what number is the sum of two squared numbers”
0 likesThis could be any real number. In fact even complex number. In fact any number (probably). This includes all 4 answers obviously.
@mambda
0 likes"Square number" is a kind of misleading name;
personally I would have preferred if people stuck to the name "square integer", because this would emphasise the "integer" part.
I guarantee that even math professors occasionally confuse "squared integer" and "square integer" with each other, because it would clearly be very easy to do that by accident.
@Peter Objectively you're completely correct. Since I was tought that term in like third grade (or rather the direct translation into my language) I never considered that.
0 likesTo be fair, I the question is worded in a little bit of a tricky way.
8 likesI myself assumed that the smaller square numbers had to be the same (4 and 4 or 9 and 9) and didn’t realize they could be different until after she read the answer :/
Yeeks, only 30% of the people got it too. What a bunch of failures we have in this country
0 likesthis is a deceptive question
0 likesTechnically all because the square root of 0 is 0???
0 likesReplies (2)
You’re not reading the question correctly.
0 likesA.) 16 couldn’t be an answer because the smallest numbers squared that get close to 16 are 2 and 3 squared which add up to 10 which doesn’t equal 16.
B.) 25 is correct because 3 and 4 squared equal 25.
C.) 36 isn’t right because the smallest squared numbers that get close to 36 are 3 and 5 squared which equals to 34 which doesn’t equal to 36 so it’s wrong.
D.) 49 is wrong because the sum of 3 and 6 squared equals to 45 which doesn’t equal to 49 since they’re the smallest squared numbers to get to 49 it’s wrong.
@Lone Cyborg so 0 squared is not considered to be a square number? honestly just asking
0 likesThat was a weird question
0 likesReplies (11)
How so?
0 likes@mambda it’s hard to understand what they are asking for
0 likes@Alexatedw For the sum of two smaller square numbers that's also a square number. Straightforward if you passed 5th grade math.
0 likes@mambda nah. The question was worded weird I get that now that you know the answer you can act like it’s easy. But, I’ve got a degree in physics, well past 5th grade math and I can see the issue he was having
0 likes@Alexatedw again: how was it worded in a weird way then? As a non native english speaker I found it easy to understand and precise.
0 likes@mambda ok good for you. Both that and the fact that it was worded weird can be true at the same time. Stop trolling kid
0 likes@Alexatedw HOW IS IT WORDED WEIRD? ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION. JEEZ.
0 likes@Alexatedw REWORD IT SHAKESPEARE
0 likes@Alexatedw Seems like you are just looking for excuses. The question was 100% clear.
1 like@hopy51 not really. If someone didn’t find it clear then it’s objectively not clear
0 likes@Alexatedw Some people will say that even 11+17 is not a clear question, because they can't do it without a calculator. But it doesn't make the question unclear. As I see, you didn't explain what exactly was unclear. I wonder how else can you understand "a sum of two smaller square numbers". Unless maybe you don't know what a square is. (I guess maybe some forgot it)
1 likex^2 + y^2 = option
0 likesAll of them are valid when you consider real numbers. The person who designed the question doesn't know math.
Replies (1)
Square numbers are integers by definition. Square numbers, i.e. perfect squares, are derived by squaring other integers. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
1 like0, 1, 4, 16, 25, 36, 49
The number 25 in this set is also the sum of two smaller square numbers 16 + 9.
this was difficult to watch
0 likes3² + 4² = 5²
1 likeAka
9 + 16 = 25
american audience.
0 likesAsians are laughing so hard at this XD
0 likesThis is a badly written question. Most thought they meant 4x4 = 16 and 2x2 =4
0 likesDon’t blame him for not getting it right
Replies (2)
The question is fine.
1 likeI used to think math questions were badly written too if I couldn't figure them out. Then I grew up.
"... also happen to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
0 likesThat's as clear as tear of mother nature.
4² = 16 and 2+2 ≠ 16. Also, 2 isn't a square number
Obviously 25
0 likesBut why isn't 16 the right answer? 4 x 4 = 16 and 4 is a square number?
0 likesReplies (2)
To get 16, you would need to add 4 + 12. The number 12 is not a square number.
2 likes@LaughingStock55 Ooooooh, so it's "add", not "multiply". I understood the question wrong. I think the vast majority of the audience did the same misunderstanding I did.
0 likesIndian people died laughing
0 likes25= 9+16
0 likes5²= 3²+4²
Yeah it's definitely not as easy for the average adult. If you were good at math growing up or use it on a semi to regular basis sure. But normal people who aren't human calculators will definitely get stumped by this question idc what any of you nerds say.
0 likesReplies (1)
I guess I qualify as a "nerd", since I have a great passion for math, but I do have enough grasp of reality to realise that a lot of people have either forgotten a lot of math, or just haven't been interested in it and thus haven't invested any time in it, or maybe even have struggled with it and become frustrated by it - math is challenging, and some people will find it very challenging.
0 likesBut I am totally willing to teach people math whenever they ask for it;
I actually find that very fun, and it is cool to see when they have those epiphany moments when they "get" something.
25 lmao
0 likesthere was a big clue = 25-16 = 9 !
0 likesSorry but the question was really confusing
0 likesI think the world is going backwards... So Manny less talented peoples
1 like16=4^2
0 likes25=5^2
36=6^2
49=7^2
Replies (2)
And?
0 likesSo? That doesn't provide the answer to the question.
0 likesThe wording of the question is very strange. I don't think the issue was his or the audience's ability to do the math. The issue was with the clarity of the question.
0 likesdO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO BOYS WHO WRITE MENS STORIES? "THEY ARE CELEBRATED" THATS NEVER A GOOD THING."HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT. i WROTE CELEBRATE IN A VERY SCARY FONT YESTERDAY.
0 likespov me in geo
0 likesThe way this question is worded is what’s bad. The second part of the sentence should say “squared numbers” to avoid confusion
0 likesReplies (9)
No, a "squared" number would be the square of any number (integer, complex, surreal, ...). A "square" number however by definition is the square of an integer.
0 likesIn fact if it said "squared" any answer would be possible.
@mambda wrong in the context of the question
0 likes@Aaron Johansen uh, no. Definitions do not suddenly change not to mention that the question does not redefine a perfect square in any way.
0 likes@mambda ok Mr know it all
0 likes@Aaron Johansen bro, you literally just make stuff up and expect no-one to correct it?
0 likes@mambda Let’s just agree to disagree that the question was stupidly worded hence why so many people got it wrong. They didn’t understand what the question was asking, the question could have included a formula to articulate it better. I’m not going to argue with a know it all though so I’m done after this message.
0 likes@Aaron Johansen "Let’s just agree to disagree" bold statement after you came into this discussion with ludicrous claims. Not to mention the fact that we didn't discuss whether the question is well articulated or not. Mathematically speaking it is completely correct.
0 likes@mambda I work with the Pythagorean Theorem all the time - in 3D space, as a variable denominator factor inside integrals - and I still felt a bit confused by the question in this video. So yes, it is kinda poorly worded.
0 likes@Peter How? I'm a non native english speaker who some basic calculus at uni. By the way I'm not suggesting the dude under pressure getting it wrong but over 70% of the audience?
0 likesSomeone can explain?
0 likesReplies (1)
16 + 9 = 25
0 likesthe question is incomplete , should say square of not just square numbers
0 likesReplies (1)
What? Square numbers are by definition the square of an integer. Not sure what you mean.
0 likesIt was easy
0 likesAll answers are actually correct because 0 is a square number lol.
0 likes0^2+4^2=16
Replies (2)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The answer cannot be the sum of 16 and 0 because 16 cannot be smaller than itself.
1 likeThe only answer that works is 25, which is 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 Ah, I did not see that one, thanks
1 likeThe way the question is worded its just wrong because it can mean more than one mathematical calculation
0 likesReplies (1)
Not really. A square number is defined as a the square of an integer. The "smaller" in the question excludes 0^2 + n^2 solutions. Only 3^2+4^2=25 remains.
0 likesi dont understand the question..dr johnny phd
1 likeNot a glowing endorsement for Wake Forest
0 likesI think the answer is A.
0 likesOh, this was done in the US. No fucking surprise there.
0 likesmuricans and maths...
0 likeswth.. an 8 yr old asian kid would have answered it it 5 secs or so...
0 likes🤦
0 likesMust be from America lol
0 likesThe question is wrong, because all numbers are square numbers. It's not necessary to have integral roots
0 likesReplies (1)
"Square number" is a specific math term and includes only those numbers that are the square of an integer.
0 likesYou are confusing the term "square number" with "the square of a number."
I see a lot of stupid comments and video title itself is also stupid. If you put in his position and start doing mental calculations within the stress that is being live on tv, in front of many people I'd like to see if you could do it. I mean, the answer isn't that obvious and it takes some time to do mental calculations.
1 likeReplies (5)
The real issue here isn't the dude but the fact that 78% of the audience got it wrong too.
0 likes@mambda The audience didn't even had time to make the calculations to start with, they only had a few seconds, unless some already did previously.
0 likesThe decision to ask the audience was a very stupid decision too.
@FreedomWarrior I disagree. if 78% of the audience don't know the most common pythagorean triple then there's something wrong. Also why vote if you don't know the answer?
0 likesI agree that asking the audience was dumb.
@mambda Most people aren't engineers, scientists or mathematicians or something related to readly know and recognize pythagorean theorem and it's safe to say that most don't even know, let alone recognize it.
0 likes@mambda There's another thing, the term "square number". You talk about Pythagoras but the vast majority of people don't even know what a square number is to start with.
0 likesAfter some simple math
0 likesIts 25
The math: 16 + 9 = 25
16 is 4 to the power of 2 and 9 is 3 to the power of 2
Edit: im right, im impressed since im bad at math
Replies (2)
efact who?
0 likesefact oh that guy, sorry English isn't my first language so i dont know english math terms
0 likes🤦
0 likesAnswer : 25
0 likes*LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, I PRESENT TO YOU "THE AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!"
0 likesBiden would answer C, Trump would answer D
0 likes9 + 16 = 25
0 likesWhy A) is not the answer (√8)²+(√8)²= 16 there is nothing like mentioned that it should be natural number so why not 👀
0 likesReplies (1)
Lol because it's not square number think about it
0 likesNot exactly a good advertisement for Wake Forest.
0 likesChai . Make I nor talk sha
0 likesim so sorry but every single option was correct, example: 16=4^2 and 16=2^2+(sqr(12))^2 AND YEA BOTH ARE NUMBERS SMALLERS
0 likesReplies (2)
A “square number,” aka perfect square is derived by squaring an integer. The square number up to 49 are:
1 like0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals the 16 + 9.
A.) 16 couldn’t be an answer because the smallest numbers squared that get close to 16 are 2 and 3 squared which add up to 10 which doesn’t equal 16.
1 likeB.) 25 is correct because 3 and 4 squared equal 25.
C.) 36 isn’t right because the smallest squared numbers that get close to 36 are 3 and 5 squared which equals to 34 which doesn’t equal to 36 so it’s wrong.
D.) 49 is wrong because the sum of 3 and 6 squared equals to 45 which doesn’t equal to 49 since they’re the smallest squared numbers to get to 49 it’s wrong.
I'm good at maths and I can prove it. 2 + 3 = 5
0 likesThere I proved it. 😁
But 2 squared plus 2 squared is 16. So then both A and B are correct
0 likesReplies (2)
It's a tricky question in the way it's worded. I got it wrong first too until you read that the sum of two square numbers, this mean two square numbers add to 25, so yes while 4x4 is made from two 2x2 and both square numbers added becomes 4+4=8 while if we take 3x3=9 and 4x4=16 gives 16+9=25. The way they use sum of two "smaller" square makes it sound weird asf 😂
1 like@kubyo indiya thanks for clearing that up
0 likesThey didn't define what set of numbers... rational numbers means all answers are true. So the person was correct.
1 likeReplies (5)
A “square number” is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore the answer must be a whole number. The only answer that works is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
1 like@LaughingStock55 Technically, a "square number" should include all numbers, because π is a number, and π² is "π-squared" - so the definition of "square number" is kind of incomplete and unsatisfying.
0 likes@LaughingStock55 It would have been more accurate to use the name "square integer".
0 likes@Peter
1 likePeter - With each additional comment you post, it becomes increasingly clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.
"Square number" has a very specific definition in mathematics. It is synonymous with "perfect square." I suggest you pick up a book on basic mathematics and review this concept. You may be studying engineering in college, but you lack some fundamental knowledge at the elementary level.
@Peter arguing definitions is pointless. It's not about how you think it should be defined but how it is defined. Feel free to create your own set of numbers that includes the square numbers of all real numbers. Good job, you just created the non-negative reals again. Very useful.
0 likes9+16
0 likesWhat a square peg.
0 likesBritain is really bad at maths
0 likesFirst world?
0 likes√16 + √9 = √25
1 likethe dumbing down of america. ANSWER A WTF
0 likes25 = 16 + 9
0 likesIf that's how they vote in America it's much more understandable how Trump was elected...
0 likesWhat's the answer
0 likesThis comment section reeks of nerd 😂(I can’t say shit either since I’m one too)
0 likesThe problem really was just badly written
0 likesReplies (4)
How? The wording is precise and clear. What would you change?
0 likes@mambda "which of these numbers happen to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?"
0 likes@Bajungasam that would work. I still don't see how the original wording is bad though. The first "square" - even if technically speaking not required - states that all the options will be square numbers. That and the rest of the question basically shouts Pythagoras.
0 likes@mambda idk i just don't like that they add something as useless as "also happen to be" making it feel like having the end result be a number that can be square rooted more important than it really is rather than just seeing it as a number that just so happens to be square rootable.
0 likes4² + 0²
0 likesReplies (1)
4² + 0² = 16 + 0 = 16
1 likeHowever, the answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, then the answer cannot be derived with the sum of 16 and 0.
Am i that trash!!
0 likesThis looks so unfigurable
it's an ambiguous question. 16 has two square numbers: 4, 4. they add to 8. now, 25 two squares: 5,5. add to 10. 36: 6, 6....add to 12.
0 likesnow, if the answer is 25: 5, 5. which sum to 10. none of the answers provided are correct. now, if you accept their answer, and add 4 + 9, you get 13! so clearly, the question is in error.
Replies (1)
A square number i.e. perfect square is an integer derived by squaring another integer. The square numbers up to 49 are:
1 like0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
In this set, the number 25 equals the sum of two smaller square numbers: 16 + 9.
(1^2 + 2^2)^2= 25.
0 likesReplies (1)
Wrong method but correct solution. The correct method (according to the question) is 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.
1 likeI'll be honest. I got stumped for a bit assuming that the smaller square numbers had to be the same number, then realised 16 + 9 = 25
4 likesReplies (2)
same, I thought both small numbers had to be the same. So it's 3² + 4² = 5²... wouldn't have guessed that, lol.
0 likes@Mai Redd well thanks for making me realise the trigonometry there. Bloody a²+b²=c²
0 likes3x3+4x4=25
0 likesBroooo
0 likesHuh.. Americans ☕
5 likes25 Lol
0 likesLook, this is a actualy hatd wuestion
0 likesStop saying sum
Sum is evil
What si sum?
SAY TEH ACTUAL THING
is it produkt? Vsota? Razlika?
The answer of division?
Americans☕☕☕
1 likepov-ur caucasian
0 likeswhy do so many ppl that dont know the answer vote
0 likesReplies (1)
Ever heard of democracy?
0 likesI can literally solved before starting the question
0 likesReplies (2)
@Peter thanks I literally like your comment yes in my math exam I can't even solve what is intergal of x² in 1 minute due to pressure I am an introvert
0 likesAnd I can also relate that statement this happens with me everything 😔😥😀
But I am a student who know at atleast about 6 th grade mathmatics and who is minimum pythyogorean triplet number which is 5
0 likesB. 25
0 likes25?
0 likes25
1 like25 is 5 x5
25 is 16 + 9
16 is 4 x 4
9 is 3 x 3
but all of the options are 0^2 plus some number squared....
0 likesReplies (1)
Note the "smaller" in the question. This excludes answers like 0^2+4^2=4^2 as 4^2 isn't smaller than 4^2.
2 likes16+9 = 25 answer
1 liketerribly worded question, this has more to do with linguistics than eith math
2 likesReplies (4)
How is it terribly worded? Mathematically speaking it's completely correct and precise.
0 likes@mambda This question isn't necessarily super-clear just because you have studied math.
0 likesI have worked in detail with the Pythagorean Theorem as a minor part of much bigger actual university math problems for almost 5 years - and then another like 10-15 years before that - and I still found this question somewhat confusing, since it can easily be misinterpreted if you don't keep track of exactly what it is saying.
Also, my father has had a degree in Engineering Physics for like 35 years, and he felt confused for a few minutes by a relatively basic moment problem in physics when I asked him about it a few years ago, simply because he has focused on a career as a math teacher and thus hasn't worked specifically with physics problems for several years, so he was rusty on physics.
A lot of people in here have this smug attitude like "I studied math once and memorised it, so I am above all of these stupid people who aren't comfortable with math";
that attitude doesn't lead to anything good at all, and it only serves as a way for arrogant people to act superior.
If they were actually concerned about people's math skills, then they would help people who struggled with math, and encourage them, not constantly mock them.
@Peter I personally have no issue with people getting it wrong / not understanding the question (especially the contestant while being under pressure, 70% of the audience getting it wrong is concerning though).
1 likeWhat annoys me are the people which after misunderstanding the question claim that the question is wrong / poorly worded / etc. because that is simply not the case.
I stand by my point that the question is clear. By that I don't mean that the question is intuitive.
@mambda
0 likes"Clear" depends on whether you keep the exact definition of "square number" in mind or not.
If you have forgotten that that name is defined as "the result of squaring an integer", then you will get lost in this problem no matter how good you are at math, because that one single "link in the chain" will be missing.
It is also easy to get brain fog when you are nervous and feel a lot of pressure in the middle of a game show, so you will have to view this video from that perspective as well.
B 25 is the answer
0 likesThis is hard to watch.
0 likesDidn't know Hillary Clinton hosted this show
0 likesEdit
0 likesWhy are the clapping ??? Because they all are weak in maths 🤷
0 likesIt's not surprising that the audience got it wrong. They're Americans after all.
0 likes25
0 likesI am like 100% sure they messed this up since:
0 likes3^2 + 4^2 = 3 + 4 * 2 = 13
Replies (3)
What?
0 likesYou pretty much wrote math as wrong as you possibly could based on the question.
0 likes@M-H 12 I just noticed it myself! I meant it equals 11 and not 13.
0 likes16
0 likesThat question is worded so poorly, downright disingenuous. Had to pause and read that multiple times and realized that my answer of "16" was wrong because of the video I am on. I thought it asked which numbers which are square also have their square squarable. I.E. 4^2=16 and 4=2^2.
1 likeMostly because I've never hd anyone interested in aokething so bulshit. Who tf cares or benefits from this answer in real life. Fick math and bless that audience.
Replies (1)
I am not denying that this question can easily feel confusing if you don't read it carefully - heck, I have studied math for several years, and I still hesitated a bit for a while.
0 likesThat said though, math is very useful, and it is actually the foundation for our whole modern society.
The question in this video is closely related to magnitudes, like for example the forces between charges that are at certain coordinates in space, or the speed of a projectile that travels at a certain horizontal and vertical speed.
Also, GPS satellites require a high knowledge of physics, chemistry and electronics, and all of those topics are based on a lot of math.
A simple water pipeline requires a lot of calculations in continuum mechanics in order to minimise the loss of friction through the pipes, and an aeroplane involves literally thousands of complex computer calculations where they try to optimise the design of the aeroplane wings, the required material, and so on.
Yes, math is frequently frustrating, and everyone struggles with it every now and then, but it is definitely extremely useful, and actually required for our modern society.
16
0 likes70% 😬
0 likes(4)²+(0)² has left the chat
1 likeReplies (1)
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. (4)² equals 16. Since when is 16 smaller than itself?
1 likeits b
0 likesThe question is poorly worded
0 likesReplies (5)
How?
0 likesThe question is worded okay. You don't understand the concept behind it.
0 likes@Peter
0 likesThis is true, but that doesn't mean that the problem is poorly worded. If you understand the concept but not the question, then the question is poorly worded. If the problem is worded correctly and you don't get it, then you don't understand the concept.
The original commenter gave no indication as to why he believed the question is poorly worded. Because the question is not poorly worded, I can only conclude that he doesn't understand the concept.
It was worded fine but majority of the people just didn't read it correctly and voted for smallest square number instead of smallest addition of two squares. If this question had timer then there is a chance of making a mistake but that guy didn't think. Audience under limited time didn't read the question properly and got it wrong.
0 likes@Peter
0 likesYour rephrasing of the question is MUCH HARDER to follow. While I understand what you wrote, I had to break it down into several component parts.
Your question requires us to remember square roots, right triangles, hypotenuses, legs of a right triangle, whole numbers, and addition. Yuck!
The original question requires us only to remember addition and the square numbers up to 49:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
Actually, the original question only requires us to know the most famous right triangle in all mathematics: 3-4-5
cringing so hard
0 likesOh, the audience doesn't know it either. Great example of a failed American education system
1 likeB
0 likesTook me seconds
Stay in school kids.
1 likeA, 16
0 likesReplies (1)
Wrong, it's B.
1 likeAll of these comments are what’s wrong with society. You guys are like HEY I COUKD DO THAT but you weren’t there under all the pressure the guy was when the problem was asked. And also, he probably made the same mistake I did and thought the two smaller numbers had to be the same number. Learn to be more understanding and less judgmental of others. That’s how humanity advances. You guys are the problem, not him.
0 likesReplies (1)
I don't judge the guy at all. I judge the fact that more than 70% of the audience got it wrong.
1 likeThat was the shittiest question ever, 3 is not a square number yet the question phrased it as if the square numbers were the ones being added.
0 likesReplies (1)
What? 9 and 16 are added. Those two are square numbers. The wording is fine.
0 likesMere baccho 4×4 + 0×0 =16
0 likesNobody on here admitting they got it wrong 😂😂😂
0 likesThank god. Pethagoragz is not alive
0 likesReplies (1)
who tf is that
3 likesYou need to know the square numbers of number 1 to 5 to solve this. What a doofus...
0 likesA wala
0 likesMeredith could've at least flashed him her cooter as a consolation prize.
0 likes(3×3) + (4×4) = (5×5)
0 likesa squared + b squared = c squared
4^2 + 3^2 = 25
0 likes16+ 9 = 25
Tough luck better luck next time.
Shouldn't it be which of these "squared" numbers...
0 likesReplies (1)
No, a "square number" is specifically defined as the square of an integer whereas "squared number" could be the square of any number.
1 likePeople are commenting that the question wasn't worded correctly. It was. It's just that the majority of people didn't care about math and left it at the school doorstep, or don't analyse the sentence to figure out what is being asked. I think the majority of the audience basically guessed, when they should have just not pressed a button at all. It must also be damned hard to think all of that through when you're the one sitting on that chair. Lots of pressure. Feel bad for the guy.
2 likesHey this guy made it to College without understanding basic math, that in and of itself as an accomplishment.
0 likesa A FAR BETTER ANSWER 2 sq is 4 sq is 16
0 likesReplies (5)
That's not what the question is asking for.
1 likeA "square number" is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Looking at this set, the only number in the set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
i know but they way they ask the question is bad.
0 likes@az21bob666
1 likeThe question is fine if you actually understand what they are asking for.
@az21bob666 why so you think the most famous Pythagorean Triple is bad?
0 likesIt asks for the SUM of two smaller squared numbers. You don’t even have a sum.
0 likesle indians
0 likesi thought the answer was C 36 because
0 likes25 + 9 = 36
5^2 + 3^2 = 6^2 = 36
Replies (3)
25+9 is 34 though.
1 like💀
0 likesNice calculation tell me more. 25+9=36 very good
0 likesIt's wild how easy this actually was to answer, not even in a snobby way. Just use one less number than the actual square root, so for A, you can use 3. 3^2 = 9 leaving A with 7, which isnt possible. C is 5^2 = 25 leaves you with 11, and D is 6^2 = 36 leaving you with 13. And ofc B, 25, is just 3^2 + 4^2. Different times I suppose but still, can't believe the audience answers LMAO
1 likeWhich of these square numbers also happens to be THE SUM of two smaller square numbers? I'm Spanish
0 likes4+4=8
5²=25
25≠5²+5²
I don't understand the question.
This is a bullshit.
Replies (2)
3*3 = 9
3 likes4*4 = 16
9 + 16 = 25
@mambda ooooooooohhhhhh, i think.... The same number🤦
1 likeCouldn't we argue that 16 is also an correct answer, because 16, can be written as 4 squared plus 0 squared and if I understand correctly there is nothing preventing us from putting zero into solution?
2 likesReplies (1)
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, then it cannot be the answer when summed with 0.
2 likesThe only answer that works is 25, which is 16 + 9.
That was worded like garbage. It's B 16+9=25. Which squared number is the sum of two squared numbers.
0 likesSince I cant image that more than halft of the audience never went to school it is obvious to me that they just wanted to punish him for his lack of brainpower
0 likesFrom this comment section, I'm finding that math nerds are mean people. Yes, the math is simple, but does that look like a math formula to you? No. I've taken Calc 1,2,3, differential equations, and linear Algebra, and I still managed to think the question was asking for a squared number that's an addition of 2 squared numbers. It's a classic psychology trick that happened to be in the form of a math question where they make it look easy, so instead of rationally making an observation and deducting the answer, you see the answer (16) and justify it by thinking the sum of two squared numbers (2 and 2) equals the square of 16 (which is 4). Game shows do this all the time, Stop being @ssholes
1 likeReplies (3)
They are definitely insecure. The only thing they offer the world is the ability to solve math problems.
0 likes@LaughingStock55 yeah, it's so odd, as an engineer who usually find the engineering solution (ie, funny formula or calculator online) I'm usually envious of people who easily and fully remember and understand math, but not this time
0 likesI have studied math at university for about 4 years, but I have never got the idea that I am somehow "better" than people with less exposure to math just because of that;
0 likesin fact, it has made me eager to help people who find math difficult, and I am always willing to do that whenever someone asks me about it, since I find it genuinely fun.
The people who mock those who have problems with math have self-confidence issues, and a superiority complex.
Those people should be avoided, because they spread a toxic and harmful energy.
超笨
0 likesQuestion itself was an issue. It felt as we had only those four options. Anyways, if you are going to appear on that show you must have practiced at least that much to know about the question.
0 likesAnyone wondering the answer, it is 25. Question asked which of the given square is the sum of two smaller squares, and 25 = 9 + 16.
i think everyone thought the question meant "which of these square numbers happens to be a squared number of a square number"
0 likesReplies (2)
No, not everyone is bad at maths.
0 likes@Jon Smith its just reading the question wrong
0 likesJesus christ, I couldn't figure it out either. So ashamed.
0 likesI think people got confused, they took this as if "SAME square number sum". Stll 16 is the wrong ans, but they feel it's worth to guess 😅
0 likesHe could have probably sued them since all of them apply to the asked question. It was never mentioned to be a perfect square number
0 likesReplies (5)
A "Square Number" and "Perfect Square" are the same thing.
2 likes@LaughingStock55 No lmao, 2.25 is also a square number but not a perfect square, you may correct me if I'm wrong it may as well be that I mixed the term perfect square up with something else but the question doesn't say it has to be an integer square
0 likes@LaughingStock55 Perfect squares are integers
0 likes@Captain you're confidentially incorrect. By definition even.
1 like@mambda then correct me
0 likesAmericans
0 likesIf the highest audience percentage is right around 50%, usually the next highest percentage is the correct answer.
1 likeeveryone in the comments pretending they get it, this questions is brutally worded
1 likef yall it took me like 10 mins shii confused me though. dont d ride in the replies please or i will get deep
0 likesB
1 likeB
0 likesIt didn't cost him that much. It just prevented him from gaining it.
0 likesB
0 likesA lot of people in here seem to not realise that there is a difference between needing time to think about something, and not understanding something.
0 likesThese same people also vote Democrat and Republican. Explains Trump and Biden. 26th in the World, ftw!
0 likesI think the question is wrong because every no. in the option can be written as the sum of two square no.
2 likes(✓8)²+(✓8)² = 16
(-✓18)² + (-✓18)² = 36
or more ways
but the answer 25(b) is only correct when they ask for sum of square of two "positive integers"
Replies (2)
You are write 😮😮😮😅
1 likeA "square number" is defined as the square of an integer (the same as a "perfect square").
0 likes0 is a number, all answers are thereby correct.
0 likeswhy isnt the word 'multiplied' in the title? Like "two smaller square numbers multiplied". Question is not clear.
0 likesReplies (1)
It's specifically asking for a "sum" which is the result of an addition.
1 likeI wonder how many bottom/shit wage people are trying to feel pumped up cause they know a random maths question on Sq numbers lol
2 likesWell I mean 16 is the sum of square of root 5 squared plus root 11 squared
0 likesReplies (2)
Neither 5 nor 11 are square numbers. A square number is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
2 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number from this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
This is why america is doomed
0 likesI don't understand the question. 2^2*2^2=16. Where is the problem?
0 likesReplies (4)
sum means addition not multiplication 4^2 + 3^2 = 16+9 = 25
2 likes@Unreal Samurai so x^2 + y^2 must be one of the answers and at the same time it must be a square?
0 likes@NkName all of the answers are squares. Only one is also the sum of two other smaller squares.
1 likeEdit: spelling
@mambda Okay, I understand now
0 likesWow, people are dumb!!.. I can't believe half the audience thought it was A.. this wasn't even difficult... I mean come on!.. Just start at 1 and start squaring.. 1,4,9,16,25... you can stop there because 25 plus 25 is 50... now start adding them together... it's not 1 and 4, not 4 and 9, and there it is!!... 9 and 16.. took all of 30 seconds... sure I wasn't under pressure, but neither was the audience.. my god our educational system sucks!
0 likesReplies (2)
You sound like a charming fellow. I bet people love to spend time with you as you chide them on their lack of knowledge. The ladies must flock to you like flies on dung.
1 like@LaughingStock55 In fairness, I deserved that. That was a callous and pejorative remark. It was intended to be a rebuke of a failed education system that's puts far too much emphasis on memorization as opposed to critical thinking, but it's true that I let my ego get the better of me and it only came across as narcissistic and demeaning... My apologies.
0 likesAnyone talking about pythagorean theorem is just as bad as the guy and 50% of the audience.
0 likesReplies (1)
How? The question essentially is about the first and most famous Pythagorean Triple.
0 likesWow. Reading the comments are brutal. Yall are forgetting a major variable. Time demand and pressure being on a TV show. Yall are running in here to try to passively say how smart you are. Most people learned Pythagoras theory. This question can easily be misinterpreted when you are rushing and assuming information. Funny part is, I bet if I was to follow your reddit post, most of you are introverted, have anxiety and scared of the public. Like get real.
0 likesReplies (1)
Under pressure you can definitely get this wrong or misunderstand the question. However more than 70% of the audience getting this wrong is concerning.
0 likesI work with the Pythagorean Theorem all the time in 3D space during integral calculations, and I still found this problem slightly confusing. It is very easy to misinterpret this question, and a lot of math people in here agree about that.
0 likesEither the youtube audience is more educated than this man either the youtube audience has the privilege of not having to solve this problem under time and money pressure. Remember how intimidating this is for most people to solve a math problem when an entire class is looking at him/her, let alone all your familly, friends and millions of folks behind there TV.
0 likesAnyway, i always found it harder to solve math problems when it is not properly formalized. Natural langages are ambiguous and this simple question can be approach in many different ways wich would lead the most of us to loose some precious time / get it wrong. I think it explains why the audience was lost too.
Why should this question be asked at all in first place? Is it a maths competition? You really have to think hard if you're not into maths and I think one should not expect an immediate answer either.
0 likesTook me about 3 minutes to figure it out because the question was not worded well. Under the pressure of the show, I would have used the 50/50 and probably still missed it.
0 likesReplies (1)
How is it not worded well?
1 likec = 25 + 9 and b = 16 + 9 so really 2 correct answers this question is dumb!!!!
0 likesReplies (2)
Not sure where you learned math, but 25 + 9 = 34, not 36.
1 like@LaughingStock55 stop laughing at me wtf
0 likes25
0 likesThat question was a little undair
0 likesReplies (1)
Why? The math involved is like 4th grade math.
1 likeIn fact, every answer is right.
1 likeReplies (1)
No, carefully reread the question.
0 likesHow is 4+4 = 16????
1 likeReplies (1)
it's 4x4 lol
1 like4² means you multiply 4 by itself so 4x4=16 same with 3² 3x3=9
Technically, any of the answers was correct because they didn’t specify the numbers had to be integers (they could be Real numbers which include Rational and Irrational numbers). Eg: 16=3^2 + (SQRT(7))^2, 25=3^2 + 4^2, 36=5^2 + ((SQRT(11))^2, 49=6^2 + ((SQRT(13))^2, QED
0 likesReplies (1)
The question specified the the answer must be a "square number" that is the sum of two smaller "square numbers".
2 likes"Square number" is another term for perfect square. Perfect squares are derived by squaring integers. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only square number in this set that is the sum of two smaller square numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
Since 0 is a perfect square, all of the answers are correct🤔
0 likesReplies (3)
Note the "smaller" in the question. This excludes answers like 0^2+4^2=16.
1 like@mambda yep, missed that
0 likes@A K I missed that too until someone else pointed it out to me haha
0 likesto be fair, this question could have been worded better.
0 likesReplies (3)
How?
1 like@mambda "square number" is not a term regular folks are going to get. I'm not sure i have a better alternative, but i can totally see how the audience chose A. But maybe thats why its such a good game show question.
0 likes@e I'm not a native english speaker and thought "square number" is a very common term eg. when talking about Pythagoras. An alternative would be "perfect square". I don't know any other options than those two.
1 likethe question isn’t worded very well
1 likeReplies (3)
How? It's very precise and clear in my opinion.
1 like@mambda Second part of the sentence should say squared not square for clarity
0 likes@O’Reagano no, then all answers would be correct. A square number by definition is the square of an integer. A "squared" number is the square of any number which would allow answers like 1^2 + (sqrt (15))^2 = 16.
1 likeA 16
0 likesThe question is oddly worded
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
1 like4^2 + 0^2 = 16...
1 like0 is also a number right guys?
Replies (1)
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 + 0 equals 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself.
3 likesOnly 25 works. 16 + 9 = 25
Here was my thought process:
0 likes2 squared (Multiplied by itself) is 4.
4 squared (Multiplied by itself) is 16.
If you have two 2's squared and added the SUM of them together which is what the question is asking, it equals 16.
25 is 2 DIFFERENT numbers which was purposefully not specified.
In the end, 2 is just not a square integer so 16 can't be the answer, but it is correct if you take away the bullshit that is algebra.
Replies (1)
"Purposely not specified"? There's no integer solutions for 2a^2=b^2 (a,b != 0) anyway.
1 likeThe 3,4,5 Pythagorean Triple is super famous and by just going through the first square numbers you can solve this in seconds if you know what a "sum" is.
Everybody in this comment section: "What an utter fool for not solving polynomial equations in his head"
0 likesAlso everybody in this comment section during their last math exam: pulls out calculator and types in 3 + 2
The question is confusing. It’s not worded correctly, as it makes no sense.
1 likeReplies (6)
The question is fine if you actually know what it’s talking about. It asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The square numbers up to 49 are:
2 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum if two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9
How is it worded incorrectly?
1 like@LaughingStock55 Yikes, what you’re saying makes sense and I’d still get it wrong lol!
0 likesThey could have asked the question in a much better way
0 likes@Lethabo Mthimkulu which would've been? And again: what's wrong with the question?
1 like@mambda nothing is wrong with the question. It just would have been nice for them to make it more simple for the dumb people like me!!
0 likesThe audience was right 2.5^2 + 3.122498999199199^2 = 6.25 + 9.75 = 16. Or are we talking about natural numbers only? Well you forgot to specify that. But still 4^2 + 0^2 = 16. Oh, you meant natural non-zero, distinct, positive, sequential numbers?
0 likesReplies (2)
"Square Number" has a specific definition in math and includes only whole numbers whose square roots are integers. In other words, square numbers are perfect squares.
1 likeThere's the word "smaller" in the question which excludes 0^2+4^2 = 4^2.
0 likesYou property tax dollars hard at work financing your public fool systems.
0 likes..
Replies (5)
Then maybe actually start funding the public school system.
0 likes@mambda The public schools are WAY overfunded. The administrations are top heavy and the student teacher ratio is getting ridiculously pampered but still the grades go down and down and the standards are lowered and still.. the grades go down and down. The only thing they still teach in grade school is the fluidity of gender and how to suck off your fellow non-binary classmate. Oh they also learn that Christianity, parents and America are all evil.
0 likesWhen I went to grade school the student teacher ratio was one teacher to 27-32 students and we learned a LOT. I learned a lot more in grade school than I ever learned the following six years.
..
@Word of Mouth "The public schools are WAY overfunded. " AHAHHAH good one dude, good to know i dont have to read the rest.
0 likes@mambda Right. It would force you to face the truth. Arrogant ignorant piece of garbage.
0 likes@Word of Mouth lmao triggered ❄
0 likes36
0 likesA true mathematician would know all answers are correct
0 likesReplies (10)
Nope. Only 25 is correct. A “square number”, aka perfect square is found by squaring an integer. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
3 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. The only number in the set above that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
A true mathematician would've read the question more carefully before commenting.
3 likes@LaughingStock55 square of root10 + square of root15
0 likesThey did not specify which number to be added while squaring so any and all no can make the answer thats why I said the question was itself flawed that is why all are possible answer
0 likes@LaughingStock55 I know what math is thats why i said all options are correct simply because the question is itself flawed
0 likes@ShadeÖclutch
2 likes"Square number" has a specific definition in math, as I stated in my previous comment. Square numbers include only whole numbers whose square roots are integers. Therefore, you cannot just take the square of any number as you have suggested. Only the following qualify as square numbers:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, ...
The only correct choice in this video is 25, which is 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 that is what I am saying Math is a very simple language if u don't specify how u want the question answered there are thousands of way to answer the same question and they never specified which kind of number to use
0 likesThey just asked about the end goal is one of these number and square any 2 no. to get one of the option as answers
@LaughingStock55 tell me indevidual square of whole root32/2 + whole root18/2=?
0 likesDoes it not come to 25 too and did not break any rules of the asked question
The same can be done for all the options
@ShadeÖclutch
2 likesYou are not understanding the definition of "Square Number." Either that or you are not paying attention to what I just wrote. I've listed square numbers for you twice and clearly explained why the only correct answer is 25. At this point it's your decision whether or not you actually want to know this stuff.
@ShadeÖclutch a square number by definition is the square of an integer. Last time I checked sqrt(15) isn't an integer.
1 likeThis question is wrong. Every rational number can be written as the sum of two smaller square numbers (as the question does not specify perfect squares only). Nevertheless, even if you consider them to be only perfect squares, every answer is correct; for example 16 = 0² + 4²
1 likeReplies (6)
A "square number" is specifically defined as the square of an integer. Furthermore note the "smaller" in the question. This excludes answers like 0^2+4^2=16.
1 like@mambda I get the first part, I was confused and you're right. But 0 < 4 and 0 is a square number so why wouldn't that be right?
0 likes@mambda
0 likesSo zero isn't a number?
@Reality Analyst learn to read before commenting.
1 like@Nicolás Ignacio Maturana Vargas because 16 isn't smaller than 16. They're asking for smaller SQUARES and not for smaller roots of the squares.
2 likes@mambda LOL
0 likesGet a life.
To all the math geniuses in the comments ...Most non math geniuses don't rely on games like this to earn money and most importantly wouldn't feel stupid from a question like this with zero perspective in daily life and if it does you wouldn't have to analize it that much! And if in one in a million someone pops it up so be it!!! We are more practical and logical beings!
0 likesReplies (8)
"square numbers aren't relevant in daily life" lmao what a stupid take.
1 likeFor some professions maybe not. For me is irrelevant anyway. But tell me what's the purpose of " the sum of two smaller square numbers " in yours?
0 likes@ameleni never painted a wall? Baked cookies on a square oven tray? Basic geometry is your life (maybe not daily).
1 likeSo you think it's a normal thing if someone thinks the Earth is flat? I mean, why would you need to know this if it doesn't help in your job? You sound like a very one dimensional person. One doesn't need to be a math genius in order to know how to count. 10 years old children are able to do this.
2 likes@mambda Of course man...I did it without thinking all the details of my every move.
0 likes@mambda I guess the audience and the player do the same thing!
0 likesThankfully I don't see algebra and geometry to my every move and thought...My mind isn't that beautiful!
0 likes@hopy51 Yes you can taunt me the player and the audience for failing the question! My comment was directed to the geniuses below who are doing the same thing as you . Obviously it's not just a matter of counting or a life fact about our planet. You cannot call people stupid based on their abilities of doing mathematics ! And mind you i come from a nation that gave birth to all this concepts and their names!! But it also made me appreciate logic and theory ( concepts also developed by people of my nation) more!!! Again I don't blame my mind for not being so beautiful...Used to do it as a teenager that caused me nothing but agony and stress and not leaving me appreciate my straight As of everything else..Unnecessary.
0 likesWe are all good at something.
0 likes
How can be 25 though when 5 times 5 is 25 but then 5 plus 5 equals 10??
0 likesReplies (5)
The square numbers up to 49 are:
1 like0, 1, 4, 16, 25, 36, 49
The square number 25 is equal to the sum of the two smaller square numbers 16 + 9.
@LaughingStock55 But the swuare of 25 is 5 and when you add 5 and 5 it's 10??? Where you get 16 and 9?
0 likes@Stephen Steele The question asks for a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Look at my previous comment for a list of the square numbers. 25 = 16 + 9
1 likeThese are all square numbers, and 16 and 9 add to 25. You are trying to add the square root, which is not the same as the square.
@LaughingStock55 Right, I get what you saying but I just don't know where the 16 and 9 is coming from. What grade you in?
0 likes@Stephen Steele you just need to solve 25 = a + b
2 likessince a and b both need to be square numbers
16(4*4) and 9(3*3) would satisfy that equation
this would be algebra
This comment section is full of childish behaviour even though its a math video. Another thing is dude was probably under massive stress so it was that much harder to recall pythagores thorem from the pile of others mathematical theorems he've been taught before.
0 likesReplies (2)
Inane comment.
0 likesProblem isn't the dude under pressure getting it wrong but the fact that 70% of the audience got it wrong.
1 likeActually all the numbers are the sum of two smaller square numbers. For example 16 is the sum of the squares of 2√2 and 2√2. Which are both numbers. Just saying
0 likesReplies (1)
A square number is defined as the square of an integer. √2 is most certainly not an integer.
1 likeThe comment section seems to lack any level of self-awareness. No shit you all can answer this because you most likely fall into 2 categories. 1. a kid who is still in school and is still taking math or 2. a person who works a job that uses math on a regular basis. You're not going to remember everything that was taught to you 20 years ago unless you are using it frequently.
1 likeReplies (23)
Square numbers and addition is something everyone uses and should know. It’s not complicated.
2 likes@M-H 12 Uh no, square number is not used to file your taxes and you can do jobs that don't require squaring of numbers. I've not had a situation where I had to square numbers in 20 years (not since I took calculus).
0 likesThe point is that if its easy, you fit into one of these two categories. Asking this type is like asking a 25-year-old do you still remember the first paragraph of the Gettysburg address that was taught to you in 6th grade.
@0doublezero0 So you’ve never multiplied a number by the same number in 20 years? You’re the type of person to say we shouldn’t teach Arabic numerals.
2 likes@0doublezero0 cope
1 likeDamn this video came out 15 years ago and people are still commenting
0 likes@Mark people still don't understand the fundamental theorems of algebra (or passed 5th grade).
0 likes@M-H 12 "we shouldn’t teach Arabic numerals." Nice assumption. It should really be referred to as Hindu-Arabic numeral systems since it was India that laid the foundation for number system.
0 likesI never said you shouldn't have a foundation? However, if you think most people use the Pythagorean theorem in their daily lives, then I doubt you've spoken to anyone outside of academia or the math/sciences about this.
@mambda And? You really think a lawyer uses algebraic theorems to win a court case? The average person only needs basic math to live a normal life, algebra is not basic math...
0 likes@0doublezero0 this literally is basic math lmao
1 likeEdit: also basic math is basic algebra.
@0doublezero0 This isn’t Pythagoras theorem, this is simple multiplication. Multiplication which so happens to be of the same number. I doubt you have even taken calculus since what you say is blatantly nonsensical and you appear to not even know what square numbers are. You definitely use multiplication in your daily life, and square numbers is simple elementary math. In other words, you don’t meet square numbers once in a lesson, you meet them throughout your entire math education aswell as in your life. Making your past point of remembering some arbitrary information with no progression a terrible comparison. Also making your claim of not used in daily life wrong.
1 likeSo no, most people can answer this question because they aren’t idiots.
@M-H 12 "I doubt you have even taken calculus since what you say is blatantly nonsensical and you appear to not even know what square numbers are." Believe what you want, the fact I corrected you on your statement on Arabic numbers being Indian in origin shows I have more respect for the origin of things than you.
0 likesAll you've done is put words in my mouth without really understanding anything I've stated. You should learn math as far as you can go. However, for most daily activities you don't need to have this level of understanding of math. A lawyer could go his entire life not being able square numbers and use the Pythagorean theorem.
Find 5 people over the age of 70 who are not in math or sciences and ask them this very question and prove me wrong. Good luck.
@mambda Let me clarify, you don't need to square things to live a normal life. Division, multiplication, Subtraction, and Addition are necessary. Yes, squaring is basic math but utilizing the Pathoregon theorem to solve that question above isn't. Its well beyond what you need in math to live as an English teacher. (if your going to be tell me basic math is basic algebra, you might as well tell all 6 graders their doing basic calculus since their learning algebra. All math builds upon itself all LMAO which is why I stated math majors would know this easily).
0 likes@0doublezero0 squaring is simple multiplication. This question is simple. Deal with it.
1 like@mambda I'm going to take a stab and say you fall into one of these two categories I've mentioned, but don't want to admit it. So you know I'm right, so deal with it. lol
0 likes@0doublezero0 in fact neither.
1 like@0doublezero0 Corrected? Arabic numerals is the name for the current most common numerical digits. It’s a name, you buffoon. I don’t recall saying anything about origin. Ironic you say I put words in your mouth.
1 likeSo what if a lawyer doesn’t “need to square numbers” aka not know multiplication? I don’t need to know how to write to do many jobs, in fact I don’t need to know how to use the toilet to do most professions even. Yet would you still say it is understandable and logical not to know? Now perhaps you realize how “need” means absolutely nothing. I don’t need to know how to use the toilet, yet it is pretty practical and expected, isn’t it?
I think it’s pretty telling if you count 6+6+6+6+6+6 instead of just 6*6, a person who doesn’t manage elementary grade math. So that brings me to the next point, would you hire that “lawyer” you talk about who doesn’t even manage the simplest elementary math? Most definitely not unless there aren’t other options.
Piss off with your demands. You made the claim that people don’t remember squaring numbers (multiplication with 2 numbers of the same value) if they haven’t done it in 20 years. You said it so it is your duty to prove it unless you want to appear more of a moron. Oh wait you can’t since almost every adult in the entirety of the world has used multiplication in the last 20 years. How unfortunate. Do you still not get it? Squaring numbers is just multiplication.
@M-H 12 "Piss off with your demands." Keep coping. You say most people can do this math yet only around 20% of the audience got it correct. I explained to you all why this happened, but your response is that they are not the norm. This is just pure cope. At the end of the day, I have more proof of my statement than you do of yours.
0 likesYes, you can multiply two of the same numbers together and it would be the same as squaring it. However, I doubt you will have a situation where you are using said squares (exclusively) to solve for a problem (like this). Most of those people are around 10 years out of school on average, so its 100% reasonable why they got this wrong. Keep calling them morons if you like, but they are the norm. You can accept this or just be ignorant to the level of common knowledge the average person has outside of school.
Next you'll tell me squaring imaginary numbers is something the average 30-year-old English teacher should know...
A third category includes those who like trivia and remember this pointless stuff just to feel smart. Otherwise we are just sad little people who are insecure about our self image. Take that rude little gremlin who trolled you. How good can his life really be if the only important thing going on for him is winning arguments on random YouTube videos?
1 like@0doublezero0 because the other 80% are imbeciles.
1 like@mambda Well then, most of the general population +10 years out of school are imbeciles because I doubt they could answer this question (lol).
0 likes@0doublezero0 finally something we can agree on.
1 like@mambda Unfortunately, that part is true. lol
0 likes@0doublezero0 The question isn’t 6*6, which is what you’re saying most people don’t know. Are you denying most adults can’t calculate that? No? Then people know square numbers. It doesn’t matter if you haven’t come across a question like this in 20 years. As long as you know multiplication and addition. You can solve it. 3*3 + 4*4 = 25, and that math you think most adults don’t know according to your comment. Why did people get it wrong? Because they didn’t think. They guessed. They didn’t bother adding square numbers until they got a match. That is the reason the question is “difficult”.
1 likeSo, when are you going to prove adults don’t know 6*6? A square number, the topic which you said most adults have forgotten?
For the idiots in the comments that don't understand the question (spoiler):
1 likex²+y²=ans; ans must be a square number.
Answer:
B:25
25 = 3²+4²
25 = 5²
This is a horrendous question. 16 is equal to the sum of the square root of 8 squared plus the square root of 8 squared. All of the answers could be sums of square numbers.
1 likeReplies (7)
A "square number" is found by squaring an integer. Therefore, the square numbers up to 49 are:
2 likes0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only square number in this set that is the sum of two smaller square numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9.
You don’t know the definition of perfect squares.
1 likeThis is a horrendous comment. sqrt(8) is a irrational number making 8 not a perfect square. None of the answers except for 25 are sums of two smaller square numbers.
0 likes@RBT-000 they didn't say perfect squares anywhere in the question
0 likes@mambda they did not mention perfect squares anywhere in the question
0 likes@anonymussy123 square numbers and perfect squares are the same thing. A square of an integer.
1 like@mambda huh I guess so
0 likesThis didn't cost him anything. Lack of a gain is not a loss. He didn't have to give the TV show $15K, did he?
0 likesReplies (1)
BatChest
0 likesThe question was wrongly formulated
0 likesReplies (3)
In what way?
1 likeThe question is fine if you actually know what it’s asking.
@LaughingStock55The question is wrongly formulated from the point where it mentions that "square numbers" are also the sum of two "squared numbers". I want to refer to the redundancy of the first data and also the fact that the question doesn't say "squared" it says "square".
0 likes@alguien lolco if it said "squared" instead of "square" in the second instance all answers would be correct. A square number is defined as the square of an integer. A "squared" number could refer to any number.
0 likesThe first "square" is not necessary, however makes the question easier since you don't have to verify that the listed answers are all in fact square numbers.
So no. The question is formulated well.
16 = 0^2 + 4^2
1 likeReplies (2)
zeros a square number
0 likesReread the question. The answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. Yes, 0 + 16 = 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself. Therefore, 16 cannot be the answer.
1 likeI would say A because:
0 likes4x4 = 16 and
0x0 = 0,
16+0 = 16
Replies (5)
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers. Because 16 cannot be smaller than itself, the answer cannot be derived using the sum of 16 and 0.
2 likes@LaughingStock55 great attention to detail. ✅
0 likesYes, LaughingStock55 has nailed it. But additionally, your reasoning Supersonic leads you to every one of the answers being correct. 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7 each +0
0 likes@Nick R it would be a lovely outcome for the participant; every answer is correct.
0 likes@Supersonic 🤣
0 likesAll of them
1 like4²+0²=16
7²+0²=49
They didn't specify the question well enough
Replies (3)
As per ur theory all options are correct
0 likesReread the question.
1 likeThe answer must be a square number that is the sum of two smaller square numbers. A square number is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
The only number in this set that is the sum of two smaller numbers in the set is 25, which equals 16 + 9. The answer cannot be the sum of itself and 0 because a number cannot be smaller than itself.
@LaughingStock55 Dude how are you so good at math? Are you a teacher?
0 likesThis is a terrible written question.
1 likeThe audience was right: 16 = (3+i)^2+(3-i)^2
0 likesReplies (4)
Square numbers, aka perfect squares, must be whole numbers. Imaginary numbers are not in the set of square numbers.
0 likes@LaughingStock55 The question was ambiguous and didn't mention 'perfect squares', so technically all of four answers were right in the world complex numbers.
0 likes@The_Other_Cartographer
0 likes"Square number" is another term for perfect square. They are the exact same thing.
The question is unambiguous. The only correct answer is 25.
Please search for "square number" online and read about it.
@LaughingStock55 It's seems square numbers is another term used for perfect squares in US.
0 likesIn my country, the square numbers refer to any square of a number over a field.
4^2 + 0^2 = 16
1 likeAudience was right
Replies (2)
The answer must be the sum of two smaller square numbers.
1 likeIt's true that 16 + 0 = 16, but 16 cannot be smaller than itself and therefore cannot be the answer.
It should be the smaller no , 4 is not smaller than 4
0 likeshorrendus question...
0 likesReplies (1)
How?
1 likeGoofy aah question. Y'all really on a high horse for knowing square numbers when they're rarely referred to in everyday life. Unless you're in a math-related career, you hardly use math
0 likesReplies (3)
Ever painted a wall? Had to measure a room? In fact calculate the area of anything? While not used on a daily base you should know this.
1 like@mambda How often are you going to be painting a room or even measuring it lol. I can just brush it up on Google. AND if you can't paint a room without measuring it, that's comical
0 likes@CynicalDuty clearly you've never painted a room then. "just google it" instead of being able to multiply 2 numbers. Pathetic.
1 likeWhat a stupid ****ing question. And I got A in GSCE AND A-level maths.
0 likesReplies (6)
This is like 4th grade maths.
0 likes@mambda It's worded poorly and requires calculation, not a general knowledge question.
0 likes@Stories read aloud the 3,4,5 Pythagorean Triple is very famous. Also the wording is very precise and not confusing at all if you know what "sum" and "squares" means.
1 likeI can see how this might be confusing for non native english speakers but for native speakers who passed the 4th grade this should be very easy.
@mambda Stop trying to sound smart, you really don't.
0 likes@Stories read aloud not even a native speaker, knobhead. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be able to add two numbers.
1 like@Stories read aloud also how is the wording confusing?
1 likeI'm with Ryan. Isn't that a ridiculously hard question for $16k??? Or am I the product of the crap UK education system?
0 likesReplies (1)
@MOUNT CRUSHMORE "However the question is worded incorrectly with loads of different exploits and loopholes." Nope.
2 likesPeople in the comments are over exaggerating. It was worded very confusing and had nothing to do with math skills. I would’ve got it wrong just because I didn’t understand the question and would’ve needed to see an example of what they meant
1 likeReplies (2)
The guy didn't seem to even remember what a square number was
0 likesThe question isn't worded confusingly, quite the opposite. Anyway, the dude not understanding under pressure is no problem. The real issue is 72% of the audience getting it wrong. That's just pathetic.
1 likeNobody caught that there are two specially-named powers: "to the second power" is generally pronounced or written as "squared", therefore the semantics of the question at hand is incorrectly spelled. It should have read "squared". The show owes our contestant $16,000.00 plus 18% per year interest for 15 years but probably the show is out of business due to bad semantics.
0 likesReplies (1)
No. A "square number" is defined as the square of an integer. A "squared number" would be the square of any number.
1 likeThe question is itself wrong. It should be stated the number should be s natural number
0 likesReplies (4)
A square number is derived by squaring an integer. Therefore a square number by definition is a whole number.
2 likes@LaughingStock55 2 is a square of root2. it aint necessarily should be an integer. Irrational numbers are also numbers.
0 likes@Zitscx ø
1 likeOkay let’s see if this helps you understand the concept of square numbers.
Take the integers 0 through 7. A square number a.k.a. perfect square is found by squaring an integer. Therefore the square numbers up to 49 are:
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49
You are confusing the term “square number” with “squared number.” A square number must be an integer by definition, whereas you can square any number you want.
@LaughingStock55 o gotcha. i see there is a difference between square and squared number.
0 likesBut I bet they know all about 'racism', 'gay rights', and all the other crap taught in schools.
0 likesReplies (1)
Lmao this gotta be bait right?
1 like