New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010

[Ben Hunter]

Hoping to see even lower necklines today, don't let us down Oliver.

[James Robinson]

Interesting that you've started it with the word "New". Since, when were the spoilers not "new"

[Michael Wallace]

cool, new spoilers

[Marc Meakin]

Got any old spoilers.

[Mark Kudlowski]

1st numbers alt:

(25 + 6) x (5 + 4)

[Marc Meakin]

Also 10 + (6-5) = 11
11 x 25 = 275 + 4

[Sue Sanders]

I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!

[Matt Morrison]

(5 + 7) x (9 + 1) = 12 x 10 = 120
120 - 2 = 118, x 4 = 472

[Marc Meakin]

No FOCKERS either

[Mark Kudlowski]

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.)

[Matt Morrison]

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.

[Kirk Bevins]

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.)

I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?

[James Robinson]

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?

[Ben Hunter]

cool, new spoilers

[Chris Davies]

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?

CARINATE is fine.

[Alec Rivers]

I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!

That's what I had, too. lol

[Clive Brooker]

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.)

I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?

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.

[Kirk Bevins]

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.

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.

[David Williams]

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.

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.

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.

[Michael Wallace]

cool, new spoilers

<3