New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Moderator: James Robinson
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Hoping to see even lower necklines today, don't let us down Oliver.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Interesting that you've started it with the word "New". Since, when were the spoilers not "new"
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
cool, new spoilers
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6410
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Got any old spoilers.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
1st numbers alt:
(25 + 6) x (5 + 4)
(25 + 6) x (5 + 4)
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6410
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Also 10 + (6-5) = 11
11 x 25 = 275 + 4
11 x 25 = 275 + 4
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Sue Sanders
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: Whitstable Kent
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.
Fool's top.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
(5 + 7) x (9 + 1) = 12 x 10 = 120
120 - 2 = 118, x 4 = 472
120 - 2 = 118, x 4 = 472
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6410
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
No FOCKERS either
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
3rd numbers:
((5 x 7) + 3) x (9 + (4 x 2)) = 38 x 17 = 646
(I hope Rachel's solution wasn't the same - I vaguely heard it on in the bachground as I was typing.)
((5 x 7) + 3) x (9 + (4 x 2)) = 38 x 17 = 646
(I hope Rachel's solution wasn't the same - I vaguely heard it on in the bachground as I was typing.)
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
I got stuck on trying to make 72 from 5, 3, 7, and 4, which would then fit nicely into (72 x 9) - 2 = 646.
I'm sure there must be a way to make 72 from those numbers, I just can't see it.
I'm sure there must be a way to make 72 from those numbers, I just can't see it.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?Mark Kudlowski wrote:3rd numbers:
((5 x 7) + 3) x (9 + (4 x 2)) = 38 x 17 = 646
(I hope Rachel's solution wasn't the same - I vaguely heard it on in the bachground as I was typing.)
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
1st Numbers Alternative:
25 x 10 = 250, 6 x 4 = 24, 250 + 24 + 5 = 279
2nd Numbers Alternative:
9 x 5 = 45, 45 - 2 = 43, 7 + 4 = 11, 43 x 11 = 473, 473 - 1 = 472
Wasn't CARINATE also there in round 13, or does it have to be CARINATED?
25 x 10 = 250, 6 x 4 = 24, 250 + 24 + 5 = 279
2nd Numbers Alternative:
9 x 5 = 45, 45 - 2 = 43, 7 + 4 = 11, 43 x 11 = 473, 473 - 1 = 472
Wasn't CARINATE also there in round 13, or does it have to be CARINATED?
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Michael Wallace wrote:cool, new spoilers
- Chris Davies
- Series 61 Champion
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
CARINATE is fine.James Robinson wrote:1st Numbers Alternative:
25 x 10 = 250, 6 x 4 = 24, 250 + 24 + 5 = 279
2nd Numbers Alternative:
9 x 5 = 45, 45 - 2 = 43, 7 + 4 = 11, 43 x 11 = 473, 473 - 1 = 472
Wasn't CARINATE also there in round 13, or does it have to be CARINATED?
- Alec Rivers
- Devotee
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
- Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
- Contact:
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
That's what I had, too. lolSue Sanders wrote:I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Why would you assume that? If I say I used the same method and was within the time, do you assume that I'm lying?Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?Mark Kudlowski wrote:3rd numbers:
((5 x 7) + 3) x (9 + (4 x 2)) = 38 x 17 = 646
(I hope Rachel's solution wasn't the same - I vaguely heard it on in the bachground as I was typing.)
If you spot that the target is 2 x (18² - 1), then using the difference of two squares you can quickly be looking for either 38 x 17 or 34 x 19. No idea how Mike approached it of course.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
It was a rather convoluted method. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is such an impressive solution in the 30 seconds. I understand the difference of two squares but to spot this and work the method out, then actually try and find the numbers that work in the time is pretty impressive. If you can't find 38x17 and only find 37x17, you are 17 out and 0 points so it's a bit of a dangerous method.Clive Brooker wrote: Why would you assume that? If I say I used the same method and was within the time, do you assume that I'm lying?
If you spot that the target is 2 x (18² - 1), then using the difference of two squares you can quickly be looking for either 38 x 17 or 34 x 19. No idea how Mike approached it of course.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1272
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
The natural approach is to start with 9x7x5x2=630. With 3 and 4 to play you might see quickly that (9x7x2 + 3)x5 is one away. With that in the bank you might have a punt at factorising. But, like Kirk, I'd be mightily impressed with someone who saw that the original approach wasn't going to work and solved it in 30 seconds. I certainly didn't.Kirk Bevins wrote:It was a rather convoluted method. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is such an impressive solution in the 30 seconds. I understand the difference of two squares but to spot this and work the method out, then actually try and find the numbers that work in the time is pretty impressive. If you can't find 38x17 and only find 37x17, you are 17 out and 0 points so it's a bit of a dangerous method.Clive Brooker wrote: Why would you assume that? If I say I used the same method and was within the time, do you assume that I'm lying?
If you spot that the target is 2 x (18² - 1), then using the difference of two squares you can quickly be looking for either 38 x 17 or 34 x 19. No idea how Mike approached it of course.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
<3Ben Hunter wrote:Michael Wallace wrote:cool, new spoilers