c4countdown

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

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

cool, new spoilers

Got any old spoilers.

1st numbers alt:

(25 + 6) x (5 + 4)

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

I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!

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

No FOCKERS either

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 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.

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.)

I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?

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?

Michael Wallace wrote:cool, new spoilers

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?

CARINATE is fine.

Sue Sanders wrote:I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!

That's what I had, too. lol

Kirk Bevins wrote:

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

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.

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.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:cool, new spoilers

<3