Heres one for all you wizz kids

Ok so my friend told me that he could prove that maths isn't 100% accurate and there are flaws to the system (thats his views by the way not mine)

so he told me that there is an unanswerable question...ill try and keep it short and we can see what everyone else thinks..its just gets my brain all pickled :confused:

so there are three men who each have £10 of cash on them and they go into a shop to buy a £30 TV. They split the price and pay £10 each and off they go but as they are leaving the shop the shop keeper runs after them and tells them he has accidently over charged them and the TV they bought actually only costs £25 and so he has £5 to give back to them. After much thought between the 4 (3 men and shop keeper) they decide a fair way to split the £5 would be £1 each for the 3 men and the shop keep would just keep the remaining £2 to charity

So..each of the men paid £9 for the TV (as they originally paid £10 and were give £1 back each)
In total the 3 men paid £27 for the tv (£9 multiplied by 3) and there was the £2 the shopkeeper was given to keep.....

This adds up to £29..so where did the remaining £1 go to???

Reply 1

Indievertigo

15

Thats got me.
How... argh. Now I won't ever be able to think straight again my brain is ****ed now.

:confused:

Reply 2

StrangerthanEleven

OP

12

tell me about it.....its been annoying me for days! :frown:

Reply 3

UnspokenTruth

its kinda contradicting the way you said they paid £27 for the T.V when it cost £25. £27-25 = 2 which is the spare change that the shopkeeper keeps. The £30 - £27 is £3 which is split between the three men.

Reply 4

Inspiron

9

hayles101

so where did the remaining £1 go to???

I took it.

Reply 5

Asriel

1

Try looking at it this way: the shop keeper gave them back £5 which took the total price of the tv to £25 ...then they gave £2 back to him which makes £27 and they kept the other £3

Reply 6

StrangerthanEleven

OP

12

but thats what doesnt make sense because they did pay £25 for the tv.....yet they each paid £9 for the tv and 9 multiplied by 3 is £27

urgh i dont know to be honest :confused:

Reply 7

Indievertigo

15

UnspokenTruth

its kinda contradicting the way you said they paid £27 for the T.V when it cost £25. £27-25 = 2 which is the spare change that the shopkeeper keeps. The £30 - £27 is £3 which is split between the three men.

Nice one

*reps*

Reply 8

UnspokenTruth

hayles101

but thats what doesnt make sense because they did pay £25 for the tv.....yet they each paid £9 for the tv and 9 multiplied by 3 is £27

urgh i dont know to be honest :confused:

you took away the change that the men got back by having each bloke pay £9 but you never added it back on when you totalled the money. They originally started with £10 each, £8.33 went to the T.V £0.67 went to shopkeeper and they kept £1. £8.33+£0.67 = £9 which you said went to the TV but it also went to the shopkeeper.

Reply 9

Mofoliage

Its the wording in the last section that messes everyone up. The £27 that is spent is on the TV and the tip added together. The men then get £1 each and so all £30s are accounted for.

Reply 10

StrangerthanEleven

OP

12

UnspokenTruth

you took away the change that the men got back by having each bloke pay £9 but you never added it back on when you totalled the money. They originally started with £10 each, £8.33 went to the T.V £0.67 went to shopkeeper and they kept £1. £8.33+£0.67 = £9 which you said went to the TV but it also went to the shopkeeper.

your probably right...its just all too much for my wee brain to handle :p:

lol

Reply 11

Leigh

15

It's just trickily worded. The £30 becomes irrelevant once the price goes down. The guys paid £9 each, £27 between them for a £25 TV. That leaves £2 change which is kept.

Reply 12

Magickal_Faerie

1

jeeesh you nearly had me there. thank god for all of these intelligent peoples :biggrin:

Reply 13

FoeGeddaBowDeet

now, someone explain this :frown:

Reply 14

Indievertigo

15

HenvY

now, someone explain this :frown:

If you look at the hypotenuse of the two, the bottom one is slightly higher than the top one. So it's been spread across a very thin layer at the top of it. I think :p:

Reply 15

UnspokenTruth

HenvY

now, someone explain this :frown:

the gradients for the traingles differ so in actuality (is that even a word) both of the combined shapes are not traingles.

Reply 16

baby_emmy

15

I remember spending one wet lunch time at primary school trying to figure that out... wasn't until i traced each section and cut them out/put it together i got it! lol :smile: