Irrational Numbers

[tirediron]

Which makes it unsolvable.

Quite true. You can make the assumption that the icon with one horseshoe would be 1/2 the amount that the number represented by two horseshoes would be, but that's just an assumption. Same with the two boots/one boot.

In truth since the iconography changes the problem itself cannot actually be solved without additional information about the value of the two different icons which is not provided.

Pre-zact-ickly!

 

[480sparky40 39]

Which makes it unsolvable.

Quite true. You can make the assumption that the icon with one horseshoe would be 1/2 the amount that the number represented by two horseshoes would be, but that's just an assumption. Same with the two boots/one boot.

In truth since the iconography changes the problem itself cannot actually be solved without additional information about the value of the two different icons which is not provided.

Make the same assumption about the horse. One horse does not equal ten. One side of a horse equals ten. Or does it? Maybe the right side equals 7 and the left side 3.

So let's apply that to the following:

2 + x = 7. Solve for x.

According to your logic, this, too, is unsolvable.

 

[robbins.photo]

Which makes it unsolvable.

Quite true. You can make the assumption that the icon with one horseshoe would be 1/2 the amount that the number represented by two horseshoes would be, but that's just an assumption. Same with the two boots/one boot.

In truth since the iconography changes the problem itself cannot actually be solved without additional information about the value of the two different icons which is not provided.

Make the same assumption about the horse. One horse does not equal ten. One side of a horse equals ten. Or does it? Maybe the right side equals 7 and the left side 3.

So let's apply that to the following:

2 + x = 7. Solve for x.

According to your logic, this, too, is unsolvable.

Nope.

According to the iconography shown two horeshoes equals a specific value. So does the picture of two boots.

However in the final equation given it is not the same picture - it's a picture of a single boot, and a single horseshoe. Now one can assume that this is the same value as the picture of two horseshoes, and likewise for two boots... or one could assume that the picture of one horseshoe is equal to 1/2 the value of the number represented by a picture of two horseshoes is, but in either case your just making an assumption. We have no definitive value assigned to either the picture of one horseshoe or the picture of one boot.

So in your example it would be much more like

2 + x = 7, solve for Y

 

[480sparky40 39]

................2 + x = 7, solve for Y

According to your logic, it cannot be solved.

 

[robbins.photo]

................2 + x = 7, solve for Y

According to your logic, it cannot be solved.

According to all logic, it can't be solved.

 

[480sparky40 39]

................2 + x = 7, solve for Y

According to your logic, it cannot be solved.

According to all logic, it can't be solved.

Can you solve for X then?

 

[robbins.photo]

................2 + x = 7, solve for Y

According to your logic, it cannot be solved.

According to all logic, it can't be solved.

Can you solve for X then?

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.

In the original problem we have values for two horseshoes, and a value for two boots. But the final equation the icons are different - it's one horseshoe, and one boot. So one can assume that has the same value as two horseshoes and two boots, but it's just an assumption. In truth the icon has changed, and no value has been assigned to it.. so we have no way of knowing what it's actual value is and thus any value we assign is just a guess, it can't be proven mathematically.

 

[480sparky40 39]

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.....

2 + x = 7. You mean you won't even solve for x?

 

[robbins.photo]

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.....

2 + x = 7. You mean you won't even solve for x?

Again, go back and read what's been written. Your analogy just doesn't work.

 

[480sparky40 39]

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.....

2 + x = 7. You mean you won't even solve for x?

Again, go back and read what's been written. Your analogy just doesn't work.

I'm simply posing the problem 2 + x = 7. Solve for x. Forget about any other brain teasers posted in this thread. It's simple.

2 + x = 7. Solve for x.

If it's so easy, why are you not answering?

 

[robbins.photo]

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.....

2 + x = 7. You mean you won't even solve for x?

Again, go back and read what's been written. Your analogy just doesn't work.

I'm simply posing the problem 2 + x = 7. Solve for x. Forget about any other brain teasers posted in this thread. It's simple.

2 + x = 7. Solve for x.

If it's so easy, why are you not answering?

Solving your equation is quite easy. But your equation has absolutely nothing to do with the original problem. So, please, go back and read what's actually been written and hopefully you'll start to understand that.

 

[480sparky40 39]

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.....

2 + x = 7. You mean you won't even solve for x?

Again, go back and read what's been written. Your analogy just doesn't work.

I'm simply posing the problem 2 + x = 7. Solve for x. Forget about any other brain teasers posted in this thread. It's simple.

2 + x = 7. Solve for x.

If it's so easy, why are you not answering?

Solving your equation is quite easy. But your equation has absolutely nothing to do with the original problem. So, please, go back and read what's actually been written and hopefully you'll start to understand that.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Answer the (simple) question and hopefully you'll understand why it cannot be answered. If not, I'll explain it to you.

And again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Or do I need to start a new thread for it?

Oh, and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

 

[robbins.photo]

Sure. Easy. Problem is X isn't what needs to be solved for, Y is.....

2 + x = 7. You mean you won't even solve for x?

Again, go back and read what's been written. Your analogy just doesn't work.

I'm simply posing the problem 2 + x = 7. Solve for x. Forget about any other brain teasers posted in this thread. It's simple.

2 + x = 7. Solve for x.

If it's so easy, why are you not answering?

Solving your equation is quite easy. But your equation has absolutely nothing to do with the original problem. So, please, go back and read what's actually been written and hopefully you'll start to understand that.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Answer the (simple) question and hopefully you'll understand why it cannot be answered. If not, I'll explain it to you.

And again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Or do I need to start a new thread for it?

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

The level of silliness has just gotten far too much. By all means provide us with the answer if you wish. Feel free to try and prove whatever point it is you've been such an ass in an attempt to prove, but I'm no longer participating. Everything I've stated is quite correct, in regards to the original problem. The rest, well frankly is immaterial.

 

[480sparky40 39]

I AM NOT REFERRING TO 'THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM'.

THE 'ORIGINAL PROBLEM' IS NOT THE ISSUE.

I AM NOT ASKING ANYTHING ABOUT 'THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM'.

YOU are the one that keeps bringing up 'the original problem'.

Nor am I trying 'to prove' anything.

I guess if you fail to understand that simple fact, then I guess the old adage is true... None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[robbins.photo]

I AM NOT REFERRING TO 'THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM'.

THE 'ORIGINAL PROBLEM' IS NOT THE ISSUE.

I AM NOT ASKING ANYTHING ABOUT 'THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM'.

YOU are the one that keeps bringing up 'the original problem'.

Nor am I trying 'to prove' anything.

I guess if you fail to understand that simple fact, then I guess the old adage is true... None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

You were the one stating that my logic was incorrect in REGARDS TO THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Which of course, is quite wrong. Then suddenly, idiotic tangentville. Thanks, no, I'm done. If you have a point, just make it already. As far as I can tell, you don't