Time to relax, off topic - Simple IQ Testing.

[António Ramos]

2+3=10
7+2=63
6+5=66
8+4=96
So:

9+7=???  

What is the answer?

They say the IQ of people that can find it is above 120

Dont write here the answer......

Just the time, maybe

[Branko Vukelic]

Dunno, around 5 minutes... maybe a little bit less

2010/12/3 António Ramos <ramst...@gmail.com>:

--
Branko Vukelić

bg.b...@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

[Stef Mientki]

<10s

[Branko Vukelic]

Damn, I suck. :)

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Stef Mientki <stef.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[mdipierro]

I am too dumb to solve it but this program can:

x=[(2,3,10),(7,2,63),(6,5,66),(8,4,96)]
alphabet = 'ab+-*'
for i in range(100000):
e = ''
while i:
e = e+alphabet[i%5]
i = i / 5
try:
for (a,b,c) in x:
if eval(e)!=c: raise Exception
a,b = 9,7
print eval(e)
break
except: pass

[Richard Vézina]

Google!

[Branko Vukelic]

Is that a new IQ test? Cause I'm totally failing it. :)

--

[Anthony]

> <10s

Are you saying it took you .002 + 83.3313 minutes?

[Stef Mientki]

Although the result seems to be ok,
I don't understand a bit of this program,
so my IQ must be well under 120 ;-)
Can you explain the program,
because I can not see the program and my solution.

cheers,
Stef

[Stef Mientki]

On 03-12-2010 16:39, Anthony wrote:
>> <10s
> Are you saying it took you .002 + 83.3313 minutes?

yep, very nice !!

[Stef Mientki]

very inserting!!
(insert "print e" and the explanation is there )

On 03-12-2010 16:26, Richard Vézina wrote:

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Dec 3, 2010, at 7:22 AM, mdipierro wrote:
>
> I am too dumb to solve it but this program can:

Cute, though the program somewhat presupposes the pattern of the answer.

The answer was obvious at a glance to those of us who had multiplication tables drilled into us all those years ago, I think.

[Stef Mientki]

On 03-12-2010 17:31, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2010, at 7:22 AM, mdipierro wrote:
>> I am too dumb to solve it but this program can:
> Cute, though the program somewhat presupposes the pattern of the answer.
>
> The answer was obvious at a glance to those of us who had multiplication tables drilled into us all those years ago, I think.

and a lot of luck !!

[Michele Comitini]

Copied the program with wrong indentation it went infinite looping
eating all virtual memory.
So I was faster yeah!
:D

2010/12/3 Stef Mientki <stef.m...@gmail.com>:

[Bruno Rocha]

I didn't need to run the program, just looked how it works then I solved in seconds, even if my IQ is under 120, now I know I can understand the Massimo's code very well! :P

2010/12/3 Michele Comitini <michele....@gmail.com>

--

Bruno Rocha

http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio

[Jason Brower]

EASY... 42 is always the answer.

[Branko Vukelic]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@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.

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Branko Vukelic wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@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.

[ron_m]

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.

[Branko Vukelic]

That's an example of thinking outside the box. :D

--

[Albert Abril]

about 3 or 4 minutes with, with a paper and a pencil

[Phyo Arkar]

<8 sec
too easy :D

[Phyo Arkar]

hint = ^+*

[villas]

> I am too dumb to solve it but this program can:

M, that program was dumb -- call yourself a programmer! :)
However, my first effort to re-factor the code still took 9 lines!

IQ Test #2
----------
Who can propose minimum lines to re-factor Massimo's code?
Of course two lines to be included somewhere must be:
x=[(2,3,10),(7,2,63),(6,5,66),(8,4,96)]
a,b = 9,7

Please first state your number of lines and then be prepared to
release your code as open source later :)
You have to beat my 9 lines so far!

[Branko Vukelic]

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM, villas <vill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who can propose minimum lines to re-factor Massimo's code?
> Of course two lines to be included somewhere must be:
> x=[(2,3,10),(7,2,63),(6,5,66),(8,4,96)]
> a,b = 9,7
>
> Please first state your number of lines and then be prepared to
> release your code as open source later :)
> You have to beat my 9 lines so far!

Something here reminds me of that "I just need a programmer" thread.

[weheh]

I wasn't timing, but felt like between 5 & 10 sec.
Thanks for the break.

On Dec 4, 9:08 am, Branko Vukelic <bg.bra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM, villas <villa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Who can propose minimum lines to re-factor Massimo's code?
> > Of course two lines to be included somewhere must be:
> > x=[(2,3,10),(7,2,63),(6,5,66),(8,4,96)]
> > a,b = 9,7
>
> > Please first state your number of lines and then be prepared to
> > release your code as open source later :)
> > You have to beat my 9 lines so far!
>
> Something here reminds me of that "I just need a programmer" thread.
>
> --
> Branko Vukelić
>

> bg.bra...@gmail.com

[Christopher Steel]

20sec

On Dec 3, 9:32 am, António Ramos <ramstei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2+3=10
> 7+2=63
> 6+5=66
> 8+4=96
> So:
> 9+7=???
>

[mr.freeze]

I tricked a co-worker into solving it then left early for a beer. I
may be a genius.

[dustin.b]

took me a while to find my calculator(behind my desk) cuz im not that
bright at mental math ... til ... i realized im sitting in front of
one .. doohh did that indicate my intelligence ? :D 'hope not! :)

did python(usage) indicate some kind of intelligence? i hear employers
like that kind of skill, even they seach for java(etc. ) coders :)

[Branko Vukelic]

Well, took me almost 5 minutes WITH a calculator... What can I say...
But I have a good excuse: I'm a graphic designer. :P

--
Branko Vukelić

bg.b...@gmail.com