<b>Ok my fellow Indians, I know we're good at mathematics but lets just stop flexing too much</b>

*Ok my fellow Indians, I know we're good at mathematics but lets just stop flexing too much*

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?

@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.

It's fact , not useless flexing , a 9 year old can answer that in seconds in India

@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.

@TheTooginator yea your right <br>He didnt have any luck that day :-

@TheTooginator yea your right
He didnt have any luck that day :-

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.

@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.<br>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...

@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...

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.

@som rawat toh Bhai khud ke desh ki burai kyu ker raha hai 🤦♂:)

@som rawat by the way may I ask this <br> Where are you from?

@som rawat by the way may I ask this
 Where are you from?

@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.<br>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)

@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)

@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.

@The Lord Yup. We arnt Asians. We are from Mars.

@The Lord Yup. We arnt Asians. We are from Mars.

I 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.

why do Indians almost always type in bold lmao

why do Indians almost always type in bold lmao

Bhai KBC KI COPY IN LOGO N HMSE KI H ,YA HM LOGO N INSE😄

Bhai KBC KI COPY IN LOGO N HMSE KI H ,YA HM LOGO N INSE😄

@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 .

Exactly, now let me and my fellow mexicans watching flex

Exactly, now let me and my fellow mexicans watching flex

Øath betrayer are you his bitch? How do you know what he does?

@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 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 .

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

Well.. you have not come across the real mathematics then.. this question was child's play

Chinese are the stereotypical mathematicians not you. When Americans say Asians they really mean Korea, Japan and China because they're thick as shit.

@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.

We are good at mathematics I'm 15 and I got it right in like 30secs

pitchfork you sound butthurt . Maybe stop ramming that pitchfork up your ass

Yeah😂it took just like 20 sec. S to answer

Yeah😂it took just like 20 sec. S to answer

Yes, but me and all the other Asians can do it instead.

Yes, but me and all the other Asians can do it instead.

'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.

@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 .

@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

Indians aren't good at math. Chinese and Russians are.

Indians aren't good at math. Chinese and Russians are.

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.

People who called us "country of snakes" deserve this....

People who called us "country of snakes" deserve this....

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

@Shikhar Dahal <br>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.

@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.

A bunch of Slumdog millionaire wanttabes!

A bunch of Slumdog millionaire wanttabes!

Indians have nothing else to really flex on so yeah

Indians have nothing else to really flex on so yeah

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

Dibas Sarkar Rightly said ! Indians bragging too much in the comments section . Criticizing the audience so that it makes them feel better of themselves


32.. would have worked as well.  😢 Too bad there is no 32. Just a tricky 36.


16 = 0^2 + 4^2.

Or even this,
16 = (√8)^2 + (√8)^2
√8 is also a real number.

He should fight back.

16 = 0^2 + 4^2.

Or even this,
16 = (√8)^2 + (√8)^2
√8 is also a real number.

He should fight back.

Anirudh Kumar Infinity is a concept. Not a number. Keep that in mind.

Anirudh Kumar Infinity is a concept. Not a number. Keep that in mind.

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 😂

Not correct.

First, learn the definition of a "square number", then come back and argue.

Not correct.

First, learn the definition of a "square number", then come back and argue.

2^4 + 2^0 =*17*<br>And when thay say squared number it means by the power of 2 not 4 or 0

2^4 + 2^0 =*17*
And when thay say squared number it means by the power of 2 not 4 or 0

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, they didn't specify "squares of integers".

Yeah, they didn't specify "squares of integers".

By the way, then every fucking option would be correct. It is a simple question, not a tricky one.

By the way, then every fucking option would be correct. It is a simple question, not a tricky one.

Question technically meant "Natural numbers" but yea they should have specified.

Question technically meant "Natural numbers" but yea they should have specified.

Leap Of faith isnt a real what? then what is 0 !? Is it a letter or symbol?

Leap Of faith isnt a real what? then what is 0 !? Is it a letter or symbol?

Leap Of faith it is considered real number includes rational no.

Leap Of faith it is considered real number includes rational no.

It’s just 25. Accept the solution.
3^2 + 4^2 = 25
5^2 = 25

It’s just 25. Accept the solution.
3^2 + 4^2 = 25
5^2 = 25

That would have worked for every answer so its invalid.

That would have worked for every answer so its invalid.

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.

0 is not a square number. Square root of 8 is also not a square number. It seems you have misinterpreted the question.

0 is not a square number. Square root of 8 is also not a square number. It seems you have misinterpreted the question.

It’s funny to read these replies and immediately be able to separate the idiots from the people with normally functioning brains.

It’s funny to read these replies and immediately be able to separate the idiots from the people with normally functioning brains.

The audience may have been stupid, but indians are showing stupidity in the comments

The audience may have been stupid, but indians are showing stupidity in the comments

I see so many new theories here. Pythagoras should see this

I see so many new theories here. Pythagoras should see this

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?

@Anirudh Kumar questions is all about sum of 2 smaller square no.<br>√8 and even 0 is not smaller square no

@Anirudh Kumar questions is all about sum of 2 smaller square no.
√8 and even 0 is not smaller square no

Then as per your genius theory, every option is correct. You are a self made man...applauds

Then as per your genius theory, every option is correct. You are a self made man...applauds

Square numbers are the numbers which can be the square of all natural numbers.

Square numbers are the numbers which can be the square of all natural numbers.

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

Anirudh Kumar, they probably mean whole numbers, but they way they wrote it is vague

Anirudh Kumar, they probably mean whole numbers, but they way they wrote it is vague

What a lovely and relevant comment section 😂

What a lovely and relevant comment section 😂

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✌

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

@Pritam Bhattacharya Zero is a real and whole number, not a counting or "natural" number

@Pritam Bhattacharya Zero is a real and whole number, not a counting or "natural" number

Sum of two smaller Numbers!!!! 4 is Not smaller than 4!

Sum of two smaller Numbers!!!! 4 is Not smaller than 4!

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

Harsh Kumar lol no. 0^2 is 0. 0^0 is undefined. 0*0 is 0

Harsh Kumar lol no. 0^2 is 0. 0^0 is undefined. 0*0 is 0

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

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

√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. 😒

@Alisha square numbers are meant to be squares of integers

@Alisha square numbers are meant to be squares of integers

They meant square of an integer. And smaller squares. So technically, both your statements are wrong

They meant square of an integer. And smaller squares. So technically, both your statements are wrong

But √8 not a square number..<br>So..25=9+16 (9&16 both are square numbers)

But √8 not a square number..
So..25=9+16 (9&16 both are square numbers)

@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.

SHIT HAPPENS when you don't define your DOMAIN  and then
some irrational and imaginary people will hit you with their intelligence. :D

*SHIT HAPPENS* when you don't define your *DOMAIN*  and then
some *irrational* and *imaginary* people will hit you with their intelligence. :D

The question is sum of smallest square numbers

The question is sum of smallest square numbers

@Pritam Bhattacharya real numbers are from -infinity to +infinity<br>You dumb

@Pritam Bhattacharya real numbers are from -infinity to +infinity
You dumb

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

Anirudh Kumar
You are right...
The question should mention "PERFECT SQUARE" not only square, since root n square of every number is possible.

The question asked square numbers.<br>√8 is not a square number neither is zero.

The question asked square numbers.
√8 is not a square number neither is zero.

Anirudh Kumar However, the square root of a negative number is represented with the letter 'i' indicating it's a imaginary number.

Anirudh Kumar However, the square root of a negative number is represented with the letter 'i' indicating it's a imaginary number.

@Harsh Kumar 0*0 is totally defined, just look a parabola graph,  it has continuity at zero

@Harsh Kumar 0*0 is totally defined, just look a parabola graph,  it has continuity at zero

Actually the question was wrong with correct options<br>He must fight back

Actually the question was wrong with correct options
He must fight back

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.

Harsh Kumar 0^2 is zero. Zero doesn’t mean undefined.

Harsh Kumar 0^2 is zero. Zero doesn’t mean undefined.

@Upendra Yadav agreeeeed haha! Definitely a more correct choice as with most multiple choice questions 👍

@Upendra Yadav agreeeeed haha! Definitely a more correct choice as with most multiple choice questions 👍

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.

@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.

The question doesn't say anything about perfect square.

The question doesn't say anything about perfect square.

Sqrt (8) and 0 are not considered square numbers for this purpose (why would they ever be?)

Sqrt (8) and 0 are not considered square numbers for this purpose (why would they ever be?)

@Anmol Tiwary koi nahi dubara book khol ke check karle

@Anmol Tiwary koi nahi dubara book khol ke check karle

PHANTOM 0*0=0 . 0/0, infinity/infinity , 1^infinity and a few more types of expressions are indeterminent.

PHANTOM 0*0=0 . 0/0, infinity/infinity , 1^infinity and a few more types of expressions are indeterminent.

Amethyst Jin Pretty sure it’s integer only since you could pick any of the 4 answers and be right then.

For someone who bashes others to be stupid you don’t seem to be that smart, kiddo.

Geez, the amount of idiots in this comment section.

Geez, the amount of idiots in this comment section.

The first example isn't correct, because the required square has to smaller than the given square.

But the second example is correct because it no where specifies in the question whether the smaller squares are squares of integers or real numbers.

Anirudh Kumar smaller numbers, using 4^2 when 16 is its square makes it unusable as it has to be >4

Anirudh Kumar smaller numbers, using 4^2 when 16 is its square makes it unusable as it has to be >4

@Harald Hey but root of 8 is smaller than 16...

@Harald Hey but root of 8 is smaller than 16...

Dude he didn't even have any idea what's going on, how he can fight back 😂😂

Dude he didn't even have any idea what's going on, how he can fight back 😂😂

@Harald Hey How about this?
16 = (√8)^2 + (√8)^2
√8 is also a real number.

@Harald Hey How about this?
16 = (√8)^2 + (√8)^2
√8 is also a real number.

Duck is not the real number she already told smaller squares <br>So it should be less than 4

Duck is not the real number she already told smaller squares
So it should be less than 4

Leap Of faith there are 16 likes on your comment lmfao what the fuck ?

Leap Of faith there are 16 likes on your comment lmfao what the fuck ?

4^2 = 16<br>So 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.

4^2 = 16
So 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.

@Harsh Kumar saale chutiye 0*0 multiplication hota hai aur 0^0 exponent

@Harsh Kumar saale chutiye 0*0 multiplication hota hai aur 0^0 exponent

@pk p Okay now i got what's square number, its bcz of my english, sorry

@pk p Okay now i got what's square number, its bcz of my english, sorry

@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

@divv agg Yeah, you're right. So he can't fight back.

@divv agg Yeah, you're right. So he can't fight back.

@pk p Square numbers aren't always positive. (-1)^2 = (-1)x(-1)=1.

@pk p Square numbers aren't always positive. (-1)^2 = (-1)x(-1)=1.

Anirudh Kumar Did you even read the question carefully? It says 2 smaller numbers, 16 is not smaller than 16! Were you amongst the audience?

@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 <b>smaller</b> 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

@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

@Anirudh Kumar harald hey has a valid point. How will you justify that?

@Anirudh Kumar harald hey has a valid point. How will you justify that?

Let me make the question easier to understand..

A²+B²=C²
Where A²and B² are smaller than C²
Find C²

Let me make the question easier to understand..

A²+B²=C²
Where A²and B² are smaller than C²
Find C²

its clearly written . SMALLER .  4 square is EQUAL to 16 and not SMALLER . <br>so he cant fight back  .

its clearly written . SMALLER .  4 square is EQUAL to 16 and not SMALLER .
so he cant fight back  .

PHANTOM  it's proven that 0 can't have a square

PHANTOM  it's proven that 0 can't have a square

@Keur yes..you are correct...anirudh kumar...see...you are wrong

@Keur yes..you are correct...anirudh kumar...see...you are wrong

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

Anirudh Kumar they said the sum of “smaller square numbers” and 4^2=4^2

Anirudh Kumar they said the sum of “smaller square numbers” and 4^2=4^2

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

Leap Of faith it doesn't matter if u reply or not in that case.

Leap Of faith it doesn't matter if u reply or not in that case.

@Harsh Kumar yeah...in limits....normally 0*0 is a real no. No fuckin doubts

@Harsh Kumar yeah...in limits....normally 0*0 is a real no. No fuckin doubts

@Harsh Kumar bro 0^2 comes 0 ...says 0 is a real no. Clearly

@Harsh Kumar bro 0^2 comes 0 ...says 0 is a real no. Clearly

Leap Of faith really??....0 isnt a real no. U mad bro?😂

Leap Of faith really??....0 isnt a real no. U mad bro?😂

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

You are right. But they will not accept because 0 is made in India. So '0' was not acceptable

You are right. But they will not accept because 0 is made in India. So '0' was not acceptable

You are wrong becoz she said smaller number and 4 is not smaller to 4.

You are wrong becoz she said smaller number and 4 is not smaller to 4.

@Harald Hey ohhhh now I understand the question!!!! Ic

@Harald Hey ohhhh now I understand the question!!!! Ic

@John Wilton The sum of two smaller square numbers. Square numbers are 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...

16 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.

@John Wilton The *sum* of two smaller square numbers. Square numbers are 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...

16 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 0^2+4^2 so there's no 16 its the square of 4 which is smaller

@Harald Hey 0^2+4^2 so there's no 16 its the square of 4 which is smaller

@John Wilton 0 + 16 = 16<br>16 is not smaller than 16. 4 is not a part of the equation.

@John Wilton 0 + 16 = 16
16 is not smaller than 16. 4 is not a part of the equation.

@Harald Hey 4 is smaller than 16 so what's wrong

@Harald Hey 4 is smaller than 16 so what's wrong

0 is not a square number because square numbers are always positive. 0 is neither positive nor negative. So 25 is correct

0 is not a square number because square numbers are always positive. 0 is neither positive nor negative. So 25 is correct

@Harsh Kumar we are no talking about limit of a function it's just 0*0 .that's it

@Harsh Kumar we are no talking about limit of a function it's just 0*0 .that's it

Pritam Bhattacharya Whole numbers are all Real Numbers as well

Pritam Bhattacharya Whole numbers are all Real Numbers as well

Harsh 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.

Harald Hey  0 is considered as WHOLE NUMBER .it is neither a real nor a natural number

Harald Hey  0 is considered as WHOLE NUMBER .it is neither a real nor a natural number

Harsh Kumar bro undefined is 1/0...<br>0^2 Is 0 and not undefined.

Harsh Kumar bro undefined is 1/0...
0^2 Is 0 and not undefined.

The question was about a sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 is not smaller than 16.

The question was about a sum of two smaller square numbers. 16 is not smaller than 16.

Leap Of faith "0 isn't a real number." The fuck? When did you heard of that.

Leap Of faith "0 isn't a real number." The fuck? When did you heard of that.

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.


To be honest it took me 3 minutes to understand question and 2 minutes to solve it. But my answer was right.


people say it's badly worded, I don't think so

pratik mour well maybe it was me who didn't really pay attention, who knows

+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.

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

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.

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.

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...)

Wilson Wohoo none of those words are big and fancy. lol, how old are you?

frankjohnson123 never said it was incorrect. It's like using big fancy words to misled people.

What 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.

I didn't know this until I realized it was about the Pythagorean theorem -.- Poorly worded 100%


In China this happens the whole nation criticizes


Well I don't blame him for getting it wrong, that question was confusing and misleading as fuck.

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

So 3 squared and 4 squared add up to 5 squared

Joshua Richie 1 is a square number and 2 is not...

Joshua Richie 1 is a square number and 2 is not...

Benardy Boen Looks like you don't know what "sum" means. Clue: IT DOESN'T MEAN MULTIPLY.

Benardy Boen Looks like you don't know what "sum" means. Clue: IT DOESN'T MEAN MULTIPLY.

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

Benardy Boen Assuming you made a typo, what you wrote still isn't consistent.

4*4 = 2*2*2*2 = 16 (There's no summation of square numbers)
5*5 = 3*3 + 4*4 = 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"

misleading? wtf you'e misleading over 200 people stay in school

misleading? wtf you'e misleading over 200 people stay in school

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)<br>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).

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).

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

Dorin Gaiu<br>"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.

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.

Stefanel<br>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.

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.

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<br>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.

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.

Top 5 easiest Millionaire questions....You're just bad lol

Top 5 easiest Millionaire questions....You're just bad lol

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.

***** It's an algebra problem.

Though it does relate to the Pythagorean Theorem in Geometry.

It looks like the States' version of this show is for retards. That seems about right.

It looks like the States' version of this show is for retards. That seems about right.

fyrestorme123 Actual they have to be different or you just get double the number you started with.

eh the only misleading part is if you assume that it meant both smaller numbers were the same number

Phynos well done. Now it all makes sense

Phynos well done. Now it all makes sense

Joshua Richie 1 is a square number and 2 is a prime number.

Joshua Richie 1 is a square number and 2 is a prime number.

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)

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

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.

It's 7th grade math. You don't know this?

It's 7th grade math. You don't know this?

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.

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.

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...

lovelydancer113 Who shit in your cereal this morning?

lovelydancer113 Who shit in your cereal this morning?

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!

Everyone that gave you a thumbs up is as ignorant as you are. Congrats youtube!

Everyone that gave you a thumbs up is as ignorant as you are. Congrats youtube!

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.

The question is posed perfectly alright.

I agree with you because the question should have looked like this:<br>Which of this numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller distinct non-zero square integer numbers ?

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 ?

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.

You are totally right. That's why the public said it was A as well...

You are totally right. That's why the public said it was A as well...

seriously? 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

***** Just saying that under pressure, I'd fuck up too

***** Just saying that under pressure, I'd fuck up too

that was my thought too, even when she explained it and i'm good at math :-/

that was my thought too, even when she explained it and i'm good at math :-/

it wasnt confusing. He was just under pressure.

it wasnt confusing. He was just under pressure.

fuck is not misleading, this question probably misled me to fuck

fuck is not misleading, this question probably misled me to fuck

Joshua Richie didnt say 1 was a squar i said 4 was

Joshua Richie didnt say 1 was a squar i said 4 was

DaVexx420 Idiot 1 Can NEVER Be A Suare Now 2 on the other hand can be

DaVexx420 Idiot 1 Can NEVER Be A Suare Now 2 on the other hand can be

ionut mihalache The hell does that have to do with you being a foreigner?

ionut mihalache The hell does that have to do with you being a foreigner?

no it is not.I am a foreigner and understood the question and knew the answer

no it is not.I am a foreigner and understood the question and knew the answer

***** I'm probably not as smart as you haha

***** I'm probably not as smart as you haha

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

suzywoozy71 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...


How can anyone be confused by this question? It's worded clearly.

I 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.

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.

i agree. the question is worded fine. i figured out the answer right away.


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?