A. $1 B. $1.50 C. $2 D. None of the above how smart is r9k?
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
A. $1
B. $1.50
C. $2
D. None of the above
how smart is r9k?
Costs $1 plus half of $1 (.50)
1 + .5 = $1.50
???
>>27608196
D. The game costs $2.25
>>27608196
2 dollars
dingding
>>27608262
no, imagine 1+1/2x=x
this it incredibly stupid because the equation references itself without a base case, so it's impossible to solve
f(x) = 1 + f(x)/2
f(x) = 1 + f(x)/2 + f(x)/4
and on and on and on
it will infinitely approach $2, but never reach it ever
this problem is stupid and you are stupid
>>27608279
correct, op leaving now
C. is right
>>27608196
>half it's price
>half it is price
Smart.
>>27608196
Its .50.
1 dollar is the game + half its price.
.5 * 1 = .5
>>27608196
It's 2 dollars
If the game is 2 dollars, it's $1 plus $1.
Half the price of the game would therefore be $1
Therefore $1 plus half the price ($1) equals $2.
>>27608332
I didn't make this problem just reposting
>>27608196
Being vague is not a test of intelligence.
>>27608312
I couldn't have said it any better myself 2bh familia
>>27608312
You use algebra in a bizarre and ineffective way. The true equation is 1.5x=x, an error, so D is the correct answer.
>>27608196
D) None of the above
Because theres no specified price and different numbers will give you different answers
case in point:
$5 is half of 10. add 1 and you get 6
$6 is half of 12. add 1 and you get 7
>>27608312
you're the stupid one anon. For the total price to equal half of it's price plus $1, that is telling you that $1 is the other half of the price. Therefore it's $2
From browsing /r9k/ for a few months now, I can see that it is now a board for people to talk about how their lives are inadequate and how they will always be a virgin. I'm sorry for all of those people who actually have autism or physical abnormalities and can't change anything about it. But, spending your entire life on the internet not doing anything about it isn't going to help. Sure, call me a normie but I just don't want to see good people go to shit just because they feel that they can't and never will fit in. If I ever met one of the sad users on /r9k/ in real life, i would try to make them feel better and give them someone to come to when they feel down. I'm not perfect, but I just try to look for the good in life and try to live it to it's fullest regardless of what comes in my way...
And no, I have never used reddit in my life before and probably never will.
D. Its Infinite, bacuse its price is always increasing by half its price.
>half it's price
>half it is price
Also, giving A,B,C,D options makes it too easy.
>>27608391
>recursive functions
>bizarre and ineffective
Get a load of this pleb.
>>27608196
It's C.
It's a bit of trickery involved. The question leads you to believe that $1 is the original price that you're adding the half to. But if you read it carefully a few times it becomes apparent that the $1 belongs to the breakdown of the original price. In simpler terms: x = 1 + 1/2x
>>27608196
D. Infinite
>>27608312
what he set up isn't a recursive function, and can be solved, you fucking CS mongoloid. it's a basic equality.
are you telling me that quadratics can't be fucking solved?
>>27608501
It isn't a situation for a recursive function. You could have used matrix algebra with random numbers in all squares and it would have been as relevant. The tool itself is of course fine but your usage of it is akin to a hamster trying to use a hammer.
>>27608696
Thanks for shutting down the retards on here.
Fucking hell, not even /sci/ can craft bait as tempting as the shit the people on this board spew.
Mathematician here. This is actually a really easy problem.
The answer is E: OP is a flaming faggot.
A - This is the correct choice if you consider an undefined value to be zero. 1 + undefined = 1 (if undefined is zero).
B - This is the correct choice if you consider the problem to be like this:
cost <- 1.00
cost <- (cost * .5) + cost
C - This is the correct choice if you consider the question to ask you to take the limit of an infinite regression of adding half costs.
D - This is the answer if you consider adding an undefined value to be undefined behavior.
This is a question about how we parse the sentence. The correct answer is D.
1+x/2=x
1+x=2x
1=3x
X=.3333333333...
1+.333/2
1.151515151515155151511551515151515151515151515151515...
>>27608792
It's C you fucking idiots
The answer depends
if you round the final result, then it is 2 dollars, since you will get such a minute difference from 2 that you can round
if you don't round, and see it as a recursive function, then the answer is >>27608312 and the question is unanswerable
if you use semantics to solve it, then the answer is unanswerable as well, because while we know the way to get the COST, whne have no idea what the PRICE is, so we can't solve it
if you solve it as basic algebra, you get x = 1 + (1/2)x, which would simplify to (1/x) = 1/2 or x = 2
but this is all pseudointellectual bullshit like
>>27608724
>>27608696
are trying to spew coming here from /sci/
get back to your fucking board
Time to really weed out the brainlets.
>>27608196
The question lacks enough information to be sufficiently solved, so D
I'm wrong
1+x=2x
1=x
1/2=.5
.5+1
Wait...the fuck is going on here this questions is unsolvable with algebra
>>27608312
Except it does reach 2 with that logic, just like 0.9999... = 1, you gigantic retard.
Take a calculus course, for once.
>>27608909
0.5x + 1 = x
2(0.5x + 1) = 2x
x + 2 = 2x
2 = x
X = 2
Basic algebra, morons.
>>27608877
Yes.
1/3 = 0.333...
0.333 * 3 = 0.999...
1/3 * 3 = 1
Therefore 0.999... = 1
>>27608196
E: None of the above.
The DLC will cost twice as much as the base game.
>>27608417
Live life to its fullest? By doing what? What is it meant when someone says they're living the ''good life''? All I can think off is a guy with a hot wife, great car and owns a huge house with bucket loads of money to splash. That's the normie's life.
All we want is someone to be with us, someone who is kind, clever and thoughtful. Someone who looks out for you and doesn't mind if you are weak/strong. Someone who shares our interests.
We can't get any of that because in today's society, you can't be friends with someone significantly uglier than you. School taught me this. Slowly friends broke up because some looked better/had more money and hanged out with others similar. All out of vanity.
I like anime. I like vidya. I met girls who have these interests and chose Chad simply because of their unfulfilled desires. Like something out of a teenage girls fantasy: Popular Chad chooses them instead of Stacy.
Life is shit. Might as well talk with one another on the internet.
>>27608862
>if you don't round, and see it as a recursive function, then the answer is >>27608312 and the question is unanswerable
>never reaches 2
holy kek i love this board
The only number it can be is 2 because it is the only number in existence that is one plus half itself but algebra seems to tottaly disagree on this question
game's price = x
half it's price = x/2
x = 1 + (x/2)
2x = 2 + x
x = 2
>>27609044
it is unanswerable
there is no base case so it will never stop referencing itself
even if you structure it as a matrix, you will never solve it because there is no way of knowing where to stop, the problem goes on and on and on because it is poorly defined
go back to /sci/ and pretend to be smart on there you underage fag
>>27608196
$2 mi amigo
>>27609104
limits aren't paradoxes, holy shit
>>27609211
limits are not the answer either
saying something is "basically" 2 because its limit is 2 is absolutely wrong
2 dollars
half of 2 dollars is one dollar
one dollar plus one dollar is 2 dollars
you fucking retards
>>27608196
I've accused /r9k/ of being the least intelligent board on this site many times before.
You never seem to even try and refute that claim.
How else do you end up as the absolute ass-end of society?
There's no way someone with >100 IQ can end up as a "robot."
x = 1+ (1/2)x
(1/2)x = 1
x = 2
>>27609251
are you seriously telling me that infinite series can't be evaluated
>>27608196
$69.99 plus 4 installments of DLC each priced at $24.99
welcome to the future
>>27609251
It isn't "basically 2." It IS 2.
>>27608196
x = 1 + (1/2)x
(1/2)x = 1
x = 2
Two dollars
game costs x+0.5x, therefore 1.5x. if x = 1, game costs 1.5 ($).
>>27608312
Why call it f(x) if you're not going to define it in terms of x? Dumb animeposter.
>>27608877
Mathematically/technically? Yes. Philosophically? No.
If you treat 0.9999... as a series (that is the infinite sum of the terms of a sequence) you'll find that the sum of the series is 1. Explanation as follows:
We can express 0.9999... as 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ...
By doing this we can find the sum of this. This is what's known as a geometric series. Here, the ratio r = 1/10 which is less than 1 so we can find the sum using the formula a/(1 - r). By factoring out 9/10 we get a = 9/10. Now we just plug it into the equation (you can look of series and the calculus behind them to understand it better than I can explain it).
0.9 / (1 - 0.1) = 0.9 / 0.9 = 1.
However, you can see that this only occurs if you take the infinite sum which is technically/philosophically impossible. We can only ever take finite, partial sums of the series so we can never actually reach the theoretical infinite sum. Doesn't matter how far we go, no matter where we stop we'll never be at that destination we set out for (it's sort of a logical paradox with a theoretical solution provided by mathematics, this paradox popped actually long ago, long before calculus was a thing).
>>27609405
actually (1/2x) will be equal to -1.
therefore game costs negative dollars
>>27608393
If the price is $10 then it's not $6. Is this bait?
>>27608795
Omg so many mistakes, tell me you are trolling, pls
You imbeciles are incorrectly using the denominator of 1/2.
$2 is NOT the answer.
>>27609468
because x in the equation is a reference to another f(x) on a different set of values, it's recursive
>>27608196
D: None of the above because I'm not some fuckin' manchild who still plays games.
>>27609657
They're using it correctly, you're just retarded.
>>27608196
Is this an f(x)=y function ? Sure sounds like it, the question was made misleading because as the price goes up, whatever determines "half the price" also goes up.
Cheeky bastard.
if the game costs x+0.5x=x, therefore it costs 0.5x = 0. this means that x = 0, therefore money and modern games are made up by jews
nothing because I'm a pirate XD
>>27609731
When you say half of its price, you can also mean 0.5
$ maxima
Maxima 5.32.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.10 (a.k.a. GCL)
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information.
(%i1) solve(x=1+x/2,x);
(%o1) [x = 2]
lrn2CAS
x=x + 1/2x no solution
game costs x+x^0.5 -> x^0.5 = -x, but x in power can't be negative. this means that money does not exist, buy gold.
>>27609840
that would be "a game costs its price plus half its price"
or equivalently x=3/2*x "a game costs one and half times its price"
>>27609840
The equation is x = 1 + 1/2x, not x = x + 1/2x
>>27609774
>>27609877
Makes sense, I should have known it.
>>27609475
True but kinda pointless and doesn't really answer the question in a meaningful way. Answered like a true mathematician in fact.
If you can compute something to arbitrary precision that satisfies what you need then you've got your answer, that is your answer. The game costs the sum to infinity of the geometric series as you said, the arbitrary precision is the number of cents after the dollar sign and that's it because a half cent has no meaning in real life.
>>27608877
x=0.9999...
10x=9.9999...
10x-x = 9
9x=9 divide both sides by 9
x=1
its basic math anon
>>27609685
But the simpler representation is x = 1 + (1/2)x. The price isn't dependent on another variable and it doesn't change, so there's no reason to call it a function.
>>27608196
hey nice long discussion about calculus and shit you got here guys
but it's $2
>>27609840
Maybe 0?
Not original my ass
The answer is C or D because the problems is poorly worded garbage that can be interpreted two ways.
>>27609783
No, because the price is $2.
>>27608312
what
f(x) = 1 + f(x)/2
<=> f(x) - f(x)/2 = 1
<=> f(x)/2 = 1
<=> f(x) = 2
you don't even need to throw in functions btw im a math major
This question is annoying because it's presented like a math problem when it's really more like a reasoning problem.
The answer logically has to be $2.
>>27610033
Cost = X
$1 = y
Interpretation A:
x = y + 1/2x
Interpretation B:
x = y + 1/2y
B is solvable, A is not.
D. Wolframalpha knows better.
>>27610130
>A is not
x = y + 1/2x
x = 1 + 1/2x
x - 1/2x = 1
1/2x = 1
x = 2
Dumbass
>>27610195
wow it parsed that completely wrong
>>27610130
Shit I wrote that wrong because I was trying to represent $1 as y but am clearly a retard.
I should have just wrote
Interpretation A:
x = 1 + 1/2x = 1.5x
Interpretation B:
x = 1 + 1/2y = 2
>>27609414
>game costs x+0.5x
you're assuming that the price is 1 idiot, the price is unknown.
Price (x) = 1 + 1/2x
=x - 1/2x = 1
=1/2x = 1
=x = 2
>>27609475
What?
"""
If your lines of reasoning are correct, but the conclusion you arrive at is definitely wrong, there must be something wrong with your assumptions.
Clearly
0.9999... <= 1.
Assume
0.9999... != 1 (*).
Then
0.9999... < 1,
so there must be some positive number P such that
0.9999... + P = 1.
But, for ANY positive P,
0.9999... + P > 1,
which is a contradiction, and definitely wrong. Therefore we are forced to conclude that the assumption (*) was incorrect, that is:
0.9999... = 1
"""
Source: http://qntm.org/pointnine
>>27610130
>A game costs $1 plus half it's price
You're confusing cost with price.
x = amount game costs
y = $1
z = price
We end up with x = y + 1/2z, which is unsolvable.
>>27608196
A game cost $1 plus half it's price
1 = x + 1/2x
So the game costs 66.6 cents plus half 33.3 cents is 99.9 cents or 1 dollar
>>27610900
>0.9999... + P > 1,
Is there a more thorough proof of this?
>>27610955
>1$ equals the cost of a game plus half its price.
is what you calculated
(The game costs $1) plus (1/2 of the game's initial cost. The game's initial cost is $1. So half of $1 is 0.50 cents.)
The game's total cost is $1.50
>>27608196
a game = 1 + half a game
>minus half a game on both sides
half a game = 1
>times 2 on both sides
a game = 2
>>27610966
It's a way of saying it's not possible to write another number between 0.999... and 1.
Similarly I'd just personally argue 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 but also 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999...
So 0.999... and 1 represent the same concept.
There's a bunch more arguments in that source that don't use series.
x = 1/2x + 1
1/2x = 1
x = 2
How can people not solve this?
>>27611271
It doesn't say half of it initial cost
>>27608417
yeah I'm going to second this. even the most impaired robot has more to gain by participating irl than solely vegging on here. Don't get me wrong, it's ok sometimes, but it's not a substitute for trying irl.
If you're convinced you'll never fit in anyway, there just isn't much to lose. As long as your living you should be trying to be happy and improve your life, even in just small ways.
1 + x/2 = x
2 + x = 2x
(2/x) + 1 = 2
2/x = 1
2 = x
x = 2
Applying algebra in a comment section, probs totally wrong or an inefficient way of working it out.
>>27611632
Ya I don't understand why this is complicated at all
E. 1 + (the price of the game / 2)
it could be any price t b h
>>27608862
>>27609011
>>27609101
>>27609297
>>27609405
>>27610245
>>27610740
>>27611453
>>27611632
Everyone else is beyond stupid.
Stop turning it into a function. Stop adding unnecessary complications. Just write it out algebraically as it is read.
If you're one of the people im linking to, and you think your life is hopeless, don't, theres still some fight in you, youre not retarded. Youre actually pretty resourceful.
The others here, ESPECIALLY the ones bringing function into this... fucking kill yourself
1+(1*.5)=1.5
And that's a verbose way of putting it too.
>>27611747
>>27611747
>If you're one of the people im linking to, and you think your life is hopeless, don't, theres still some fight in you, youre not retarded. Youre actually pretty resourceful.
>The others here, ESPECIALLY the ones bringing function into this... fucking kill yourself
Had to kek. You're right though
How are so many of you so fucking retarded? If 1 + half of the total = the total, then both halves are obviously 1.
A fucking 10 year old could do this shit.
1.575 with GST
Is it subtotal or with taxes? man taxes are a killer
B. $1.50
>>27608196
a = 1/2a + 1
1/2a = 1
a = 2
