Are You A Genius?

What I'm getting from this thread is how much of my "edge" I've lost in the last few years. One time, doing impromptu algebra in my head to solve problems like this was no big deal, now its just not happening.
View attachment 1305018
Excellent post, Pio1980. My wife has spent the past 21 years in the occupational role of occupational therapist to geriatric patients. I called her over to read what you displayed and she couldn't help but laugh out loud as the individuals who make up her daily case load are living proof of the statements espoused by The Cat In the Hat. :D
 
Norwegian drinks water, Japanese owns the zebra.

Now the question is, did you actually solve it or cheat and look up the answer lol?

I really like these types of puzzles, I used to get books full of these usually posed as a who done it murder mystery etc.

Crosswords were a big passion of mine, along with Sudoku, Kenken etc, not so much anymore but I should start again, helps keep the mind sharp.
 
Last edited:
Solved it of course. What would be the point of looking it up and pretending to have done it myself? So I assume my answer is correct?

I used to buy puzzle books that had ones similar to that. Although yours may have been a bit tougher...or my brain was more fluid back then.... or both. Good fun as the answer seems impossible at first...but each little step reveals connections that confirm or deny something.
 
Solved it of course. What would be the point of looking it up and pretending to have done it myself? So I assume my answer is correct?

I used to buy puzzle books that had ones similar to that. Although yours may have been a bit tougher...or my brain was more fluid back then.... or both. Good fun as the answer seems impossible at first...but each little step reveals connections that confirm or deny something.

Good for you, I used to give this to my college students for extra credit, very few even attempted it lol.
 
Here's another, not sure how well this will translate in type lol.

Two pieces of rope, not necessarily the same length or thickness but they both take exactly one hr to burn. Your goal is to measure exactly 45 minutes of time with only these two ropes and a Bic lighter.
 
Here's another, not sure how well this will translate in type lol.

Two pieces of rope, not necessarily the same length or thickness but they both take exactly one hr to burn. Your goal is to measure exactly 45 minutes of time with only these two ropes and a Bic lighter.
Cut exactly 25% off the length of one rope.
 
They're trick questions. We all know you don't have to be a genius to go to Harvard or Yale.
Yeah... and in some way in some departments you have to be generally quite stupid.. generally stupid, like having a single channel of intelligence.
 
Here's another, not sure how well this will translate in type lol.

Two pieces of rope, not necessarily the same length or thickness but they both take exactly one hr to burn. Your goal is to measure exactly 45 minutes of time with only these two ropes and a Bic lighter.


Assuming no cutting or measuring tools....


EDIT: you could fold one rope into quarters, light at one of the far bends (i.e. not the bend in the middle), the time required to burn the longer portion of that rope would be 45 minutes. The 2nd rope not needed
 
Last edited:
Assuming no cutting or measuring tools....


EDIT: you could fold one rope into quarters, light at one of the far bends (i.e. not the bend in the middle), the time required to burn the longer portion of that rope would be 45 minutes. The 2nd rope not needed

The rope doesn't necessarily burn at a constant rate, it's not necessarily a constant thickness over it's entire length.
 
I always want to make sure any genius test I take was written by a certified genius. I mean, why would a genius such as myself take a genius test written by a "regular" person. The nerve of some people.
 
In responce to the OP, I can't say I remember anyone ever calling me a genius but I have been called a dumb ass :(
 
A true genius will always know the reading glasses are on his forehead, without spending an hour trying to find one of the dozens of pair that have been misplaced.
 
Theorem: 4 = 5

'Proof':
-20 = -20 (obviously...)
16 - 36 = 25 - 45 (just two different ways to write -20)
4^2 - 9*4 = 5^2 - 9*5 (factoring...)
4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4 (add 81/4 to both sides)
(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2 ("completing the square")
4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2 (get rid of the squares)
4 = 5 (cancel the 9/2 from both sides)

QED.
Wow. No takers, huh?
 
Theorem: 4 = 5

'Proof':
-20 = -20 (obviously...)
16 - 36 = 25 - 45 (just two different ways to write -20)
4^2 - 9*4 = 5^2 - 9*5 (factoring...)
4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4 (add 81/4 to both sides)
(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2 ("completing the square")
4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2 (get rid of the squares)
4 = 5 (cancel the 9/2 from both sides)

QED.
operator order of precedence, thou must evaluate the term in parens first, without it, you are 'removing the square' or in other words, the square root of a negative number. (LHS = -.5, RHS = .5)

or another way to look at it x^2 - y^2 <> (x-y)^2 unless x=y=1, making if a function of compact support and therefore not valid across a range of numbers.

if it was true, you could 'remove the square', but it aint , it aint my fault, I cannot change it, and that is my story
 
Back
Top Bottom