Add the numbers in the Triangle

dodzy

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I make it 899 ... all are in four triangles except 25 which is in three.

Read the previous 147 posts M.T, then re-jig your math:rolleyes:

ro810

ok team.... this calls 4 a sleepless night... google until someone finds out some way in which we can slove this or prove its a scam:mad:

dodzy

Axwell wrote: »

Ah Tar cmon even a primary school kid can work it out..:D

You have a spooky post count Axwell:D

Axwell

dodzy wrote: »

You have a spooky post count Axwell:D

Ya and if you take my post count at that stage and take away 1044..u get tonights answer..freaky or what ..or is it just completely random like the answer 622

brightkane

"Ray,

Flicking through the tv stations last night i came accross a phone in quiz on tv3.

I started a discussion on boards.ie about it , link below.

No one can find out how they got the final number 622.

Plus the presenter kept saying throughout that it came from a primary school book!

Can you check it out with them and let us all know.

Also attached is there website.

Ps if you can mail me to let me know what time this will be aired so I can make sure everyone tunes in!

Thanks Ray

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055610276

http://www.playtvireland.com/
"

Cant let this one go!

Tar.Aldarion

don't let it go, i didnt even see the show and im angry

Axwell

Ray ya legend..if you are reading this..go on the lily whites!!

Right im off to study primary school maths cos i obviously missed the chapter on adding up numbers in triangles...later folks!!

dodzy

brightkane wrote: »

"Ray,

Flicking through the tv stations last night i came accross a phone in quiz on tv3.

I started a discussion on boards.ie about it , link below.

No one can find out how they got the final number 622.

Plus the presenter kept saying throughout that it came from a primary school book!

Can you check it out with them and let us all know.

Also attached is there website.

Ps if you can mail me to let me know what time this will be aired so I can make sure everyone tunes in!

Thanks Ray

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055610276

http://www.playtvireland.com/
"

Cant let this one go!

You bet me too it BK ! Thread now on subscription list ! Roll on Ray !!!!:D Thats it for now. Bed.

amacachi

PM me when they're talkin about it!

I'm going to go mental here tonight tryin to work out how they got it. Wonder if there's an online calculator that you could put the numbers in to that'll give back how many times each one has to be added to get to the target.

ro810

me and my brother are sittin here trying 2 find something on the internet!!

AMPM

This is killing me. I've spreadsheets open all over the place, links to other websites and all sort of crap but i gotta go to bed I'm playing golf in the morning.

I know I won't be able to sleep.

ro810

no way i can sleep 2nite.. i no someone hu knows someone with a masters in maths so im going to them in the morning and seeing what they think it is.... im pretty sure they will get 993!! ive been adding up all the numbers in different ways and i still cant find it!!

M.T. Cranium

I now agree that the right answer is 993. If you forgot to add the single number triangles that would give you 787 (not 622). Whether that was part of the error or not, if you also forgot various of the combined triangles, there are no sums of them that, when subtracted from either 993, or 787 or even 1018 (which you would get by mistakenly calling 25 alone a triangle), yield 622. Various combinations of missing triangles from these starting points miss 622 by various amounts. So I am going to make this guess -- somebody with very poor eyesight did the calculations and one of the numbers in the puzzle was seen incorrectly. Now is that plausible. Let's see how that would work.

In this, I am going to leave out the slim possibility that our unknown calculator saw 25 as being a triangle. You would need very poor eyesight to do that.

Now, if 51 or 43 at the base were seen as other numbers, presumably smaller (to explain a smaller total) then they would have been wrong five times, so the error would be either 371/5 or 165/4. Neither of those reduce to whole numbers, so we can exclude a visual error on those two.

Okay then, what if he saw 78 or 34 wrong? Those figure in four times, so we would be looking at 371/4 or 165/3. The second case computes to 55. Now only 78 can be reduced by 55 and leave a positive number, namely 23, which does look a bit like 78. So this becomes our strong candidate for visual error and indicates that our calculator forgot to add the single-number triangles.

Before proving this solution, I will consider the last case, the 25 which cannot possibly be it because it is too small to explain an error that big, only counting in three triangles.

Now then, let's verify this. If the 78 of the diagram was seen as 23 in the solution for 622, then our calculator would have found triangles adding up as follows:

43 + 51 = 94

43+51+23 = 117

25+23 = 48

25+34 = 59

34+43+51 = 128

Full triangle (all five) = 176

And he/she forgets the single triangles

The sum would be 622.

Astounding, no?

dodzy

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I now agree that the right answer is 993. If you forgot to add the single number triangles that would give you 787 (not 622). Whether that was part of the error or not, if you also forgot various of the combined triangles, there are no sums of them that, when subtracted from either 993, or 787 or even 1018 (which you would get by mistakenly calling 25 alone a triangle), yield 622. Various combinations of missing triangles from these starting points miss 622 by various amounts. So I am going to make this guess -- somebody with very poor eyesight did the calculations and one of the numbers in the puzzle was seen incorrectly. Now is that plausible. Let's see how that would work.

In this, I am going to leave out the slim possibility that our unknown calculator saw 25 as being a triangle. You would need very poor eyesight to do that.

Now, if 51 or 43 at the base were seen as other numbers, presumably smaller (to explain a smaller total) then they would have been wrong five times, so the error would be either 371/5 or 165/4. Neither of those reduce to whole numbers, so we can exclude a visual error on those two.

Okay then, what if he saw 78 or 34 wrong? Those figure in four times, so we would be looking at 371/4 or 165/3. The second case computes to 55. Now only 78 can be reduced by 55 and leave a positive number, namely 23, which does look a bit like 78. So this becomes our strong candidate for visual error and indicates that our calculator forgot to add the single-number triangles.

Before proving this solution, I will consider the last case, the 25 which cannot possibly be it because it is too small to explain an error that big, only counting in three triangles.

Now then, let's verify this. If the 78 of the diagram was seen as 23 in the solution for 622, then our calculator would have found triangles adding up as follows:

43 + 51 = 94

43+51+23 = 117

25+23 = 48

25+34 = 59

34+43+51 = 128

Full triangle (all five) = 176

And he/she forgets the single triangles

The sum would be 622.

Astounding, no?

Deep M.T...... really deep :rolleyes:

Did Ray bring it up on his phoneshow by any chance ? Still wrecking my head. :mad:

brightkane

not brought up yet - no reply to email, they might have set topics for today already or something

thomaskearns

I still mantain that the answer is 993 and thats its some sort of scam...

its ten triangles, the one large one and then the rest in the image below. each colour is a different one. which makes ten in total and gives you 993. its the most logical answer.

Hippo

thomaskearns wrote: »

I still mantain that the answer is 993 and thats its some sort of scam...

its ten triangles, the one large one and then the rest in the image below. each colour is a different one. which makes ten in total and gives you 993. its the most logical answer.

Absolutely, this has to be the correct answer. I only suffered for 45 minutes last night, but still.....

djmetric

Did you guys notice that the line on the right side of the main "container" triangle was thicker than the other lines?
I don't know if that makes a difference. Like we know that a triangle's interior angles must equal 180 degrees right? So does a thicker line on one side cause it to no longer be a triangle?
Using this theory I got the answer 222.... which is way off. But perhaps I'm on the right track. Maybe the thicker line only affects some of the triangles...

This is driving me nuts! Hope we can figure it out.
I took a picture of the puzzle. Not sure if I can post in onto the forum without breaking some copyright rule.

Hippo

There's a picture of it on page 2 of the thread

ro810

im convinced that its all just a scam....think of hw much money they made by giving us the answer 622 and not letting anyone through to the studio.... its the only good reason... because there is no way all of us are wrong someone has to know what we are doing wrong(if are doing anything wrong)

djmetric

Hippo wrote: »

There's a picture of it on page 2 of the thread

Hummm, you can't really see that the line is thicker in that image.
I've attached the picture I took. The line was definately thicker on the right.

ro810

djmetric wrote: »

Hummm, you can't really see that the line is thicker in that image.
I've attached the picture I took. The line was definately thicker on the right.

i looked at it there and i dont think it makes much of a difference.. because if you dont not include that line and take away every triangle which it is used to make a triangle the most you can get it 350. way off there "622"

so i dont think that makes much of a difference.. just an other mistake on there part:eek: shocker

ro810

emmm i dont know if this is still in effect but i dont think we are aloud talk about this on this...........read

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/announcement.php?f=&a=720

although it was 8 years ago

brightkane

Never knew that Ro,

Well lets just discuss how to get the answer until Ray takes up the case!

ro810

true no hurtful comments towards the presenter.. i still cant figure out how they got it! i stayed to far 2 late looking through the internet and nothing was found! im going to ask everyone i know and see what they think.

MOH

I got this by e-mail about an hour ago, it's doing the rounds with people trying to find the 622, googled it and what do you know, I'm back on boards. 993 is definitely the right answer.

There's no way of getting 622.
Wrote a quick program to loop through the 5 numbers and see what combinations add up to 622. There's loads. But 34 and 78 have to appear the same number of times, as do 43 and 51. And there's no such combination.

I call shescamigans.

Donk09

I fell asleep at about 2:30 am last night,

the only two answers i could come up with were 993 and 174

i spent about €10 ringing with 174 as i had heard 993 a couple of times

i was certain it was the answer

******************
to day in worked i googled it and I just found this post and it is the funniest thing i have ever read

It was all exactly how i was feeling and thinkin..

till the point that i fell asleep...

not long after that someone said 174

but i cant believe it went on for so much longer

and an answer of 622...WTF

the host said when he was shown how they came up with the answer "he was like oh yeh thats easy"

i cant beleive in the end they never showed the way they got the answer

what a fu*kin scam

....but even how Tar was getting angrey in the post and they warnt even watching the show....(it was so funny to read)

dodzy

Morning BK,

what time do you call this then !

A total mindfeck is this. 993 has to be the answer. Now the host did state that it was primary level and I also think he stated thst you only use each number once. Even as individual digits, its 174 as previously mentioned. So he had to be talking sh1t.

God knows he went off the air rapid quick !

brightkane

Jesus its gained ground if its hit the email trail already this monring.

I requested the BCC to investigate it for me.

http://www.bcc.ie/

ektich

brightkane wrote: »

Jesus its gained ground if its hit the email trail already this monring.

I requested the BCC to investigate it for me.

http://www.bcc.ie/

Is it worth "adding signatures" to your request instead of sending separate emails to bcc? If you have a ref number or something of your complaint I'd like to send one in myself linking to yours. I also got either 993 or 174. Maybe my PhD in Mathematical Physics works against me on this puzzle?!?!?