Topic: Solve this
started by: GORDON
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,05:53
Been about 5 minutes... I haven't figured it out yet.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2012,06:16
I don't see anything.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2012,06:19
This one?
Got it.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 16 2012,06:52
If that's the one, I remember looking at the numbers for a minute of idle pondering and no progress. Then I read the bit about kids being able to solve it quickly and got it instantly.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2012,07:10
(TPRJones @ Apr. 16 2012,09:52)
QUOTE
If that's the one, I remember looking at the numbers for a minute of idle pondering and no progress. Then I read the bit about kids being able to solve it quickly and got it instantly.
Yeah. That was the giveaway for me too
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,07:12
Damn, it displayed when I first posted it.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2012,07:13
I used math to solve it as well, and it took me about 1 minute.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2012,07:13
(GORDON @ Apr. 16 2012,10:12)
QUOTE
Damn, it displayed when I first posted it.
Hotlinking disabled type of thing.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 16 2012,08:00
Personally I think the time given in the paragraph is crap. No way is any kid going to spend five to ten minutes on that. They'd be bored to tears after less than 30 seconds, so either they got it right away or wondered off to do something else.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 16 2012,08:24
Got it.I not only disagree with the time given, but I want to meet the pre-school kid who even understands there's a puzzle to be solved there.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,09:03
goddammit
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 16 2012,09:08
I didn't get it instantly like Catt and TPR because I was WAY over thinking it. It took me between 5-10 minutes before I realized my mistake.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,09:12
I am stuck on thinking... maybe the trick is that it's all just gibberish.I can't not think like you guys seem to be able to do. ;-)
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 16 2012,09:30
Oh, wait, you still don't have it? Really?Wow.
Okay, maybe this tip will help: I think the reason I read why kids are better at it is bullshit. They said that kids who don't understand numbers as mathematical symbols instead look at them as just drawings, and thus they get this very quickly. But then if that were the reason, how would they understand the numbers to the right of the equals signs as the solutions to each equation? They'd need little dot patterns or something.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,11:10
Ok, this was dumb.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 16 2012,11:23
I assume that means you got it. Want to feel better? Post the image to FB. Tell folks not to post the answer, but only when they "got it". They can IM you to find out if they're right.
Of course, that could backfire if all the stupid people you might know respond back in seconds with the right answer
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 16 2012,11:54
By the way, I was just kidding. I don't consider you slow for taking so long. It's one of those puzzles that intentionally relies on feigning ignorance to solve.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,12:02
Frustrating thing is that even while trying to figure it out, I consciously knew that something about it reminded me of a similar puzzle, the "Petals of the Rose" thing. But it took me a while to make the connection.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Apr. 16 2012,12:27
I'd look at it a couple minutes here and there. So, no idea what the total time was. >5 minutes, <20. I also agree that a preschooler wouldn't understand what they are looking at either. There would have to be more of an explanation. "Here's a picture. Solve it." Really? Everything stated above, agreed.It's not a bad puzzle. The text above it is bullshit.
I solved it somewhat quickly. Does that mean I'm stupid?
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 16 2012,12:35
Huh. Never saw Petals of the Rose before. Interesting. I get it.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2012,13:21
Had never heard of Petals Around the Rose either... but yeah, similar concept.. I WAS 3 FOR 3!I disagree with the text of the original too, but I think it's just supposed to be a hint that "math is not important"