Top | Newest First | Oldest First
SW-User
SteelHands · 61-69, M
View 4 more replies »
SteelHands · 61-69, M
ImKelsey · 26-30, F
@SteelHands How is the pattern broken at 7 if 7 sq + 7 = 56 as predicted?
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@ImKelsey @SteelHands the problem here is that it's not a math problem. It's a pattern problem.
Obviously 4+4 = 8 not 20
And therefore the falseness of the statement throws it out of math totally. The pattern was stated before my reply.
Obviously 4+4 = 8 not 20
And therefore the falseness of the statement throws it out of math totally. The pattern was stated before my reply.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
quitwhendone · M
I don't think you wrote that correctly but the answer you are looking for is 90. 9+9=90
Perhaps it should be written something like x(y)+x=90
Perhaps it should be written something like x(y)+x=90
VioletRayne · 31-35, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ImKelsey · 26-30, F
90. Substitute times for plus and then add the prime in each case. Took me 5 seconds to solve.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@ImKelsey absent a times operator this can be logically argued as incorrect.
I could also assert that by squaring one of the addenda you'll get the same result.
There's no evidence in that theory either.
Just a plus sign. And a nonexistent 8.
I could also assert that by squaring one of the addenda you'll get the same result.
There's no evidence in that theory either.
Just a plus sign. And a nonexistent 8.
Mona86 · C
68 it’s added my 2
SW-User
148?
SWisGoingWoke · M
74
SW-User
90
Mguinm · 51-55, F
90
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M