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.

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.

@QuantumHornet Square numbers are always integers. Please go look it up.

@QuantumHornet Square numbers are always integers. Please go look it up.

Algorox square numbers are not integers always. squares can be non integers. For example, what is the sqrt of 2.5?

Algorox square numbers are not integers always. squares can be non integers. For example, what is the sqrt of 2.5?

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

It is legitimately just the pythagorean theorem. Basically, it is just saying provide c when both a and b are integers.

It is legitimately just the pythagorean theorem. Basically, it is just saying provide c when both a and b are integers.

"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.

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

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

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 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

Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two unique/different square numbers?

Which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two unique/different square numbers?

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

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

'Please give us a decently worded version'. Lol. Are you from the show management and hosting committee?

'Please give us a decently worded version'. Lol. Are you from the show management and hosting committee?

thank the stars for one decent comment in this section, finally!

thank the stars for one decent comment in this section, finally!

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.

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.

Algorox I literally answered it within 2 seconds of seeing the answers. Didn't even see the last 2. Bam 25.

Algorox I literally answered it within 2 seconds of seeing the answers. Didn't even see the last 2. Bam 25.

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.

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.

Wholeheartedly agree, I'm so glad I found this gold mine of a comment section that I was involved in two years ago lmao.

Wholeheartedly agree, I'm so glad I found this gold mine of a comment section that I was involved in two years ago lmao.

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

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

Had no fucking clue until she explained it, so it was worded poorly.

"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

I got confused by thinking that it is the same square roots added.<br>I couldn't find any answer.

I got confused by thinking that it is the same square roots added.
I couldn't find any answer.

Algorox I agree this was the easiest math question of my life and I’m 14

Algorox I agree this was the easiest math question of my life and I’m 14

+    Algorox The wording was a bit strange; the "happens to be" should be replaced by " is ."

+    Algorox The wording was a bit strange; the "happens to be" should be replaced by " is ."

+    GHSimon3 The others did have this kind of connection  5^5 = 25, 6^6= 36, 7^ 7 = 49

+    GHSimon3 The others did have this kind of connection  5^5 = 25, 6^6= 36, 7^ 7 = 49

I worked out the answer from the thumbnail before I even clicked on the damn video, what is there to misunderstand??

I worked out the answer from the thumbnail before I even clicked on the damn video, what is there to misunderstand??

Algorox it took me 6 seconds to understand it.

Algorox it took me 6 seconds to understand it.

+Steven Miles in conclusion .............

Shut up lethargica

+Steven Miles in conclusion .............

Shut up lethargica

+Lethargica Stengah what's bad about a woman m8?

+Lethargica Stengah what's bad about a woman m8?

+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)<br>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

+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

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.

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 0.21 is a square number of something and even its square is a squared number

+TisfatDude0703 0.21 is a square number of something and even its square is a squared number

Saleh Alkandary square numbers ARE integers.

Saleh Alkandary square numbers ARE integers.

it was not just poorly worded it was mathematically wrong because all answers are correct because the question didnt say integers

it was not just poorly worded it was mathematically wrong because all answers are correct because the question didnt say integers

+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.

+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.

+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.

+TisfatDude0703 'Which of these square numbers also happens to equal the total of two smaller square numbers?'

+TisfatDude0703 'Which of these square numbers also happens to equal the total of two smaller square numbers?'

+Bertram Hilhorst Dutch people are Kinsey 6

+Bertram Hilhorst Dutch people are Kinsey 6

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 Where in my comment did I even mention 8 or 4+4?

TisfatDude0703 Where in my comment did I even mention 8 or 4+4?

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.

Removing the word "other" would actually make it more difficult because that particular word gives you a clue.

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.

Removing the word "other" would actually make it more difficult because that particular word gives you a clue.

+TisfatDude0703 I would have put the word "other" in the question.

Which 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.

it was actually easy to understand the question...nothing wrong with how the question was asked

it was actually easy to understand the question...nothing wrong with how the question was asked

+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.

+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.

Yeah, I know. I understand where I got confused, this type of question wouldn't confuse me again.

Yeah, I know. I understand where I got confused, this type of question wouldn't confuse me again.

+Squiffel that would be three square numbers not two.

+Squiffel that would be three square numbers not two.

+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.

+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 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.

MrBigEnchilada Then do some research. "Square number" is a common term.

MrBigEnchilada Then do some research. "Square number" is a common term.

I forgot the difference between prime numbers and square so I said 36

I forgot the difference between prime numbers and square so I said 36

+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

+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

+GHSimon3 and that is why you usually have millionaire in your own language :P

+GHSimon3 and that is why you usually have millionaire in your own language :P

+TisfatDude0703 <br>the question should be "which of the following number is equal to sum of square of two numbers"

+TisfatDude0703
the question should be "which of the following number is equal to sum of square of two numbers"

+balzonurchin yea it's kinda interesting and funny how people like to waste their time

+balzonurchin yea it's kinda interesting and funny how people like to waste their time

+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!

***** I still don't understand. It said the sum of two smaller square numbers. 4
+ 4 is 8. Also, 4^4 isn't 16.

***** I still don't understand. It said the *sum* of two smaller square numbers. 4
+ 4 is 8. Also, 4^4 isn't 16.

+TisfatDude0703 2^2=4 and 4^4=16 ... that is what most people thought.

+TisfatDude0703 2^2=4 and 4^4=16 ... that is what most people thought.

+TisfatDude0703
"is math gay"
 1 yes
 2 yes
 3 yes
 4 yes

+TisfatDude0703
"is math gay"
 1 yes
 2 yes
 3 yes
 4 yes

bluAsterisk Perfect squares are the same as square numbers.

bluAsterisk Perfect squares are the same as square numbers.

+TisfatDude0703 They're called perfect squares

+TisfatDude0703 They're called perfect squares

+TisfatDude0703 was worded completely fine lol. just had to think deeply

+TisfatDude0703 was worded completely fine lol. just had to think deeply

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 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.

+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 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.

+Lethargica Stengah I guess he's trying to say that it would be your only redeeming quality right now.

+Lethargica Stengah I guess he's trying to say that it would be your only redeeming quality right now.

Should've said "squared numbers", 4 is a square number and that by 4 gets 16. Very confusing

Should've said "squared numbers", 4 is a square number and that by 4 gets 16. Very confusing

+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.

+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.

+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.

GG no re

+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.

GG no re

+dispatch1347 Square numbers are non-negative by definition. Otherwise, the negative numbers would be a product of two imaginary numbers, containing i.

+dispatch1347 Square numbers are non-negative by definition. Otherwise, the negative numbers would be a product of two imaginary numbers, containing i.

Zheng 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.

Zheng 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.

+Lethargica Stengah You cracked me up big time. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.

+Lethargica Stengah You cracked me up big time. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.

+TisfatDude0703 english isnt acutally my mother tungue and I would have solven it right.

+TisfatDude0703 english isnt acutally my mother tungue and I would have solven it right.

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.

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.

+Lethargica Stengah I hope to god you're a Meshuggah fan..

+Lethargica Stengah I hope to god you're a Meshuggah fan..

+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.<br>+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 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.

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.

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.

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.

+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?

Lol fuck off while you can now.

+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*?

Lol fuck off while you can now.

+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.

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 "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 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 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 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.

***** 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.

+TisfatDude0703 Thank you. I'm glad that you understand what I'm saying.

+TisfatDude0703 Thank you. I'm glad that you understand what I'm saying.

+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.

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 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.

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 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 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?

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 Why should I bother providing context for you?

TisfatDude0703 Why should I bother providing context for you?

Lethargica Stengah What the hell are you on about?

Lethargica Stengah What the hell are you on about?

Steven Miles "Destroyed"? How delusional.

Steven Miles "Destroyed"? How delusional.

+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 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?

Steven Miles gg? Did you not realise I was making fun of you?

Steven Miles gg? Did you not realise I was making fun of you?

+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  Now YOU are being EXTREMELY patronizing, so nobody wins.

+Lethargica Stengah  Now YOU are being EXTREMELY patronizing, so nobody wins.

Steven Miles You apologised, that takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.

Steven Miles You apologised, that takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that.

+Lethargica Stengah If it sounds patronizing, I'm sorry. It's not supposed to.

+Lethargica Stengah If it sounds patronizing, I'm sorry. It's not supposed to.

Steven Miles The problem is that it sounds patronising.

Steven Miles The problem is that it sounds patronising.

+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?

+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?

Steven Miles What the fuck? What makes you feel the need to say this?

Steven Miles What the fuck? What makes you feel the need to say this?

+Lethargica Stengah  You admitted your fault. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that. Everyone makes mistakes.

+Lethargica Stengah  You admitted your fault. That takes a lot of effort, thank you. I respect you for that. Everyone makes mistakes.

Steven Miles Yes, I treated 'square' and 'number' separately, so its my bad.

Steven Miles Yes, I treated 'square' and 'number' separately, so its my bad.

+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.

cameron1004 Tell me what you think these incredibly obvious reasons are.

cameron1004 Tell me what you think these incredibly obvious reasons are.

+Lethargica Stengah a square number is always known to be the square of an integer for incredibly obvious reasons

+Lethargica Stengah a square number is always known to be the square of an integer for incredibly obvious reasons

+TisfatDude0703 Any answer you choose is right, because they don't specify a kind of number.
For instance,

A: (sqrt(15))^2 + 1^2 = 16
C: 5^2 + (sqrt(11))^2  = 36
D: (sqrt(48))^2 + 1^2 = 49

+TisfatDude0703 Any answer you choose is right, because they don't specify a kind of number.
For instance,

A: (sqrt(15))^2 + 1^2 = 16
C: 5^2 + (sqrt(11))^2  = 36
D: (sqrt(48))^2 + 1^2 = 49

+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.

+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 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.


This man doesn’t know his Pythagorean Triples,      3,4,5    9,16,25

no he didn't mean that, there are plenty more

That was the first thing I thought too lol

Common Cool Channel No need to act hard and show your useless talent over here over a stupid easy question.

I have no clue what that is yet I could answer that so.... moot point.

Lol..the bragging..9,16,25 are pythagorean triples? Haha

I meant I don't care that we don't even need to know that.

Common Cool Channel<br>Well you obviously do.

Common Cool Channel
Well you obviously do.


As a math major I would assume you to remember the famous 345 Pythagorean Triple.


If you ever covered Pythagoras' Theorem this is insanely easy

XD
YEah

Also Geometry Dash BayVe
he said makes it insanely easy, not just possible.

Pythagoras' Theorem isn't even required for this, you just need basic knowledge of how square numbers work.

Really this is basic trig. 3-4-5 triangles are very rudimentary.

Omar Beydoun you really don't believe that, I learned that stuff when I was in 6th grade.

Ratty I just worked my wake up from 2 squared- I'm 14 and it wasn't that hard

Altai 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

Or if you've been finding the magnitude of vectors (which uses Pythagoras too).

Ratty Ikr, it's like the first example of Phytagorean numbers


Audience did cheating with this guy surely


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


From the thumbnail alr knew its 25...its simply 16+9. What's so hard?

I would of picked 25 even by guessing to be brutally honest. The answer just pops out.

actually was x²+y²=z²     z² being some of the answers


speacial triangles  37 and 53  it was the only thing he had to know


That's the American education system for you.

angc214 That is because you do not know the brazilian system.


It's not the math. That's super easy. The problem here is the question.


Anybody else had this in their recommend for some reason?

I have been watching a lot of Stupid Game Show Answers lately...

Yes I did :D Apparently time is repeating itself again


Did no one learn about 3 4 5 triangles in school??


Azii Reflect - Should have made that “Baggins” into “Draggins” (as in dragging).

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.

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.

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

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?

@HydroDragonN talk about generalising. You clearly don't know how much people generalise India and Indians.

@HydroDragonN like you guys never stereotype others.

Xoreign 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

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

@HydroDragonN not racist.  This is the result of our failing school systems.

...who even thinks "American" is a race anyways?

@Var R + The guy above me<br>When you can't take a joke so you resort to your racism

@Var R + The guy above me
When you can't take a joke so you resort to your racism

@Ishwar LMAO poor triggered beta loserish Indians.  It's actually the richest America worth four times the richest Indian.<br>How delusional are you lol.

@Ishwar LMAO poor triggered beta loserish Indians.  It's actually the richest America worth four times the richest Indian.
How delusional are you lol.

America : A country where people take guns to school but not books.

@Var R a rich indian is worth 10 rich Americans so shut the fuck up and go to your mama

Sorry, we have archaic school systems based upon the value a person has, not the penitential.

FACTZ OVERDOSE I couldn’t think of a better term off the top of my head

FACTZ OVERDOSE I think you’re simplifying the definition of racism a bit, but yes, I know America isn’t a race

Rohan Dick It is a simple solution. Never said it wasn't. But it was poorly worded.

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.

That's stupidity beyond anything right there.


I am 11 years old just calculated it in my head😂


As a sixth grader, this was extremely hard to watch.


Square of 3 plus square of 4… this is an easy one


The U.S. education system must be terrible.

I'm also not a native English speaker but i understood the question well...I answered it before the options showed up..

RB FingerMagic It took me about five seconds to read the question and produce the correct answer. I had no issues with it at all.

Shakespeare dipshit that isn't the right way to frame that question, u of all ppl should know that.

RB FingerMagic Maybe your brain isn’t wired properly.

it took me a minute to understand the question, it wasn't worded properly

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?

@lovelyxskinny Thank god....I am indian... atleast our education system is good!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

I didn't understand the question because I don't understand English very well. lol

Ali Moh it is simple maths. But the question is worded horribly

Lol you won't even set your eyes on becoming a doctor without knowing simple maths like this...

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.

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. 😂

+lovelyxskinny
Then the Canadian education system is awful as well.
The question did made sense, and English is not even my first language.

Carlos Emilio Salazar Mendez I didn't know this and I'm Canadian. The question made no sense


thats a tricky question. kind of unfair. its designed to trip you up.


Hold 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)

Ok wait that makes so much sense now


and why the heck is this in my reccomendations

Because you watch random videos & youtube is dumb

Cause your dumb as fuck and YouTube knows it and now so does everyone

Probably youtube think you're bad at math :)) just kidding


Easy math, hard to understand the way question was written.


I took only 5 seconds to answer....
.

.
.
.
This wrong..

Well me too, Because I've read it badly (I thought it was product and not sum)


I think people thought sum meant multiplying so thought 4 x4


Where the fuck is this audience, Alabama?


@Damien Germosen But that makes 20, which wasn't an option?

@Sebastian Olmedo seriously, this is my happy face.

No, offence, but your profile pic says it all... jk.<br>Honestly your profile picture is really hilarious! You picked out the right one!

No, offence, but your profile pic says it all... jk.
Honestly your profile picture is really hilarious! You picked out the right one!

Adithya 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

<del>AmoN</del> 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

-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

Did you do this method?
4²+0²=16+0
=16
Then you're Super genius.

NuclearCraft it’s not difficult at all to see that others might make mistakes.

Damien G oh my god i just thought the same

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.

If you ask me, anyone who can't process how somebody might come to a different conclusion are the real idiots.

@varun manjunath I don't know about them but for me it was 4•4=16 and 2•2=4

@Amon I second this. Please tell us how 16 seemed to be the right answer at first?

@Amon the same as the other 50% of idiot's

I don't wanna hate or attack you, but can you please explain how you got to that conclusion?


If this was in any country other than usa, i gurantee the audience wouldve got it right

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.

TapTapGo <br>Nah, Indians know Math, trust me.

TapTapGo
Nah, Indians know Math, trust me.

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

You forgot to mention India and China specially

That's cause we actually let your people in...

suny123boy1 because a lot foreigners come to America

Red Guy but you can’t characterize a whole of millions of people it is legit impossible.

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

USA is full of lackluster brains. Their average IQ doesn't even touch on triple digits like the UK's does.


Wait wtf? They picked A on purpose or what


Lol.. any average Indian guy would have answered this within like 1 minute

I knew the answer before they even revealed the answer A

@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.

Not indian and still solved it in 2 seconds...

Except Indians are to busy calling me pretending to be the IRS asking for money.

I'm 12 o figured it in 12.444771899π66299√7189 seconds thank u very MUCH

@New York that just shows how dumb you are

@New York 😂 it's like saying your full name it's that fucking easy to even count in the pressure

Did your dumbasses forget to factor in the intense pressure of an audience watching you?

@Enony Muz apparently the whole country is dumb

relax Indians asian curriculum are not far different most are taught phytagoras since end of elementary schools that guy is just dumb

1 minute , i can answer this in under 2-3 seconds...<br>Even 6th class student in india can answer this..

1 minute , i can answer this in under 2-3 seconds...
Even 6th class student in india can answer this..

shubham joshi I’m American and it took me like 5 seconds. Pretty easy question and have known this since 5th grade

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

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”

@QuantumHornet hahaha 30 secs one can take in a hot seat to understand that question😁.

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 easy, but feeling the need to humblebrag about it is exactly the type of thing school does to people.

Yes it is easy. Anybody who doesn't think so needs to go back to school.


The way they worded the question was misleading

The way they worded the question was misleading

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.

It was surely confusing, but wasn't misleading at all.

It was surely confusing, but wasn't misleading at all.

The question wasn't supes clear, but it was multiple choice so like how could it have been interpreted any other way.

Square number which is sum of 2 square numbers . If u can't understand this u should educate urself lmao

Square number which is sum of 2 square numbers . If u can't understand this u should educate urself lmao

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.

Jake Darby if every number is a square number then the word has no use

Jake Darby if every number is a square number then the word has no use

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.

IKR...how difficult can it possibly be putting the words "the" and "next" around the word "two"?? >.<

IKR...how difficult can it possibly be putting the words "the" and "next" around the word "two"?? >.<

Bob Costas the question was pretty clean and understandable. Understanding the question should Be doable imo

Bob Costas the question was pretty clean and understandable. Understanding the question should Be doable imo

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?"<br> 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.

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.

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

Nishant Bagree you don't know what grammar is shut the fuck up

Nishant Bagree you don't know what grammar is shut the fuck up

Bob Costas u sure , u know english <br>oops sorry,USA Dont know what grammar is ?

Bob Costas u sure , u know english
oops sorry,USA Dont know what grammar is ?

No it was not, English is my third language and I understood the question

No it was not, English is my third language and I understood the question

Jake Darby was looking for this in the comments. All the answers are correct!

Jake Darby was looking for this in the comments. All the answers are correct!

Bob Costas Stop complaining. It was simple math... 9 + 16 = 25.

Bob Costas Stop complaining. It was simple math... 9 + 16 = 25.

MillerIndustriesInc Sum never implies product, what are you talking about?

MillerIndustriesInc Sum never implies product, what are you talking about?

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.

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.

most people read 'sum' as 'product'<br>I did too, gotta read more carefully

most people read 'sum' as 'product'
I did too, gotta read more carefully

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.

The 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

no, guessing you are bad at the standardized tests

no, guessing you are bad at the standardized tests

I knew the answer but understand what bobs sayin. Stop being dipshits

I knew the answer but understand what bobs sayin. Stop being dipshits

Bob Costas hahaha no it's not. If you have basic reading comprehension skills you'll understand the question

Bob Costas hahaha no it's not. If you have basic reading comprehension skills you'll understand the question

how the fuck is that misleading? A square which is a sum of squares. Not complicated

how the fuck is that misleading? A square which is a sum of squares. Not complicated

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.

datnix.. 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...

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

Kuo Lee<br>it 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

Kuo Lee
it 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

How would that help? They say it has to be a smaller number.

How would that help? They say it has to be a smaller number.

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

depends if u say 0 is a squarenumber some say it is one some say its not :d plz dont quote wiki to proof

depends if u say 0 is a squarenumber some say it is one some say its not :d plz dont quote wiki to proof

Rob it says two smaller square numbers, so it's not correct

Rob it says two smaller square numbers, so it's not correct

lol this was so easy.. whats misleading there? tell us how to get to 16 with ur logic... <br>u think two can be a four? so the sum of 4? or what xD

lol this was so easy.. whats misleading there? tell us how to get to 16 with ur logic...
u think two can be a four? so the sum of 4? or what xD

Bob Costas It's actually not misleading lol

Bob Costas It's actually not misleading lol

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

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.

prozvidz Or maybe they do and it was misleading.

prozvidz Or maybe they do and it was misleading.

Preston Granger people were "mislead" because they do not understand the definition of certain terminology's. That does not mean the question is misleading

prozvidz In yes way was it misleading. Hence why people were mislead.

prozvidz In yes way was it misleading. Hence why people were mislead.

Trevor St-Jean more like people should get a functional brain and not be a complete idiot

Trevor St-Jean more like people should get a functional brain and not be a complete idiot

dude even half the audience didnt know the answer because of how badly the question was worded xD

dude even half the audience didnt know the answer because of how badly the question was worded xD

Bob Costas how is this misleading....if this wording is hard to understand then try some partial differential equation application problems

how 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.

Trevor St-Jean !!!!!!!!!!!!!yo pass the right triangle

Trevor St-Jean !!!!!!!!!!!!!yo pass the right triangle

> "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....

HEAD EXPLODES

> "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....

*HEAD EXPLODES*

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 💪 💪 💪

Trevor St-Jean i think you mean square rooted

Trevor St-Jean i think you mean square rooted

i thought you had to find which number could be squared twice. like 16 squared is 4 and 4 squared is 2... o.O

i thought you had to find which number could be squared twice. like 16 squared is 4 and 4 squared is 2... o.O

+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

Yes 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.

Cochu U Yeah... Cause you clearly misunderstood.

You thought I said 4 * 2 * 1^2
But actually, I said 4^2 * 1^2

★ Cuddlepuff ★ Sum is the result of adding numbers.

★ Cuddlepuff ★ Sum is the result of adding numbers.

I first thought they had to be lower than the lowest number in the answers but it is understandable anyways

I first thought they had to be lower than the lowest number in the answers but it is understandable anyways

Only when ambiguous means "i am stupid".

Only when ambiguous means "i am stupid".

I had to read it a second time, but it's not worded hard.

I had to read it a second time, but it's not worded hard.

MuffinsAPlenty <br>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.

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.

***** 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
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.

***** 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.

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?

***** Yeah, that makes sense.  But I wouldn't call that ambiguity.

***** Yeah, that makes sense.  But I wouldn't call that ambiguity.

"The question was ambiguous"

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?

No, not really. All the terminologies were legit. Its just that you weren't capable to understand the question.

Bob Costas no, not really. He's honestly an idiot.

Bob Costas no, not really. He's honestly an idiot.


Well, ask them about celebrities and the Einstein in them would come out


√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 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼