<8 sec too easy :D
On 12/4/10, Albert Abril <albert.ab...@gmail.com> wrote: > about 3 or 4 minutes with, with a paper and a pencil > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Branko Vukelic <bg.bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's an example of thinking outside the box. :D >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM, ron_m <ron.mco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > When I saw these I was thinking what kind of weird number base is this >> > in to get simple addition to yield those results. Oh well back to the >> > planet I live on. >> > >> > On Dec 3, 1:25 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Branko Vukelic wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> The answer was obvious at a glance to those of us who had >> multiplication tables drilled into us all those years ago, I think. >> >> >> >> > I hated those tables. :) Probably explains why it took me so long. >> >> > But >> >> > I did in my head more or less the same thing massimo's program did. >> >> > Just tried different permutations until one fit, and then applied it >> >> > to the last one to test if it works. >> >> >> >> Yeah, they were pretty tedious. >> >> >> >> 2+3=10 >> >> 7+2=63 >> >> 6+5=66 >> >> 8+4=96 >> >> So: >> >> 9+7=??? >> >> >> >> When I see "7+2=63", the 9 sort of jumps out at me, from the proximity >> of the 7 & 63. And of course the 7 & 2 also look like 9, so Eureka! (Once >> you then figure out the role the 9 has to play.) >> >> >> >> Ditto the other combinations, though in practice they just serve to >> confirm the original hypothesis. >> >> >> >> -- >> Branko Vukelić >> >> bg.bra...@gmail.com >> stu...@brankovukelic.com >> >> Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/ >> Check out my portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/foxbunny/ >> Registered Linux user #438078 (http://counter.li.org/) >> I hang out on identi.ca: http://identi.ca/foxbunny >> >> Gimp Brushmakers Guild >> http://bit.ly/gbg-group >> >
