CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can you get the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8,9 to total 100 just by adding together ?
I posted this question up on different sites in the past at one stage it caused several savage exchanges with a group of mathematicians who got totally passed oft that they couldn't solve it ; incidentally I've yet to have anyone get the correct solution....
I haven't actually done the math yet but I know what's necessary for the solution. One needs to first use a decimal point and a vinculum to get a repeating decimal. I'll come back to this later and post my result here (assuming I can manage it!).
Winston for the life of me I cannot comprehend how a simply stated question has so many people scurrying about looking for the most bizzare mathematical explanations ; this was meant to be a fun question and has turned into an absolute absurdity .
The solution involves thinking outside the box if you want the solution I will give you it tomorrow I've done so to two other people but certain individuals I refuse to give the answer too on account of their despicable childishness and temper tantrums
Yeahhh I've been doing that, I just haven't been able to find that magic combination yet. XD I don't understand why people are getting so pissy, they aren't being forced to do this, it's a brain teaser, it's fun. If I have dents in my desk from head slamming that's my own fault. ;D
Also I have a feeling that when someone does get it i'll be like DANGIT that's so obvious!
Hi Mint , it always gets the same reaction from one set of people and that's egotistical mathematicians who sulk when they cannot answer ,actually there's a lot of good ones who take it as a bit of fun .
Lol, tempting but I want more time. I'm off and on with work so I have just enough time to cool my head and think of another way, I love out of the box thinking. But after a bit I may hit you up with a solution.
Are you using decimals? What other ways have you thought about it that are out of the box? XD there may not be an answer but it's fun to find different ways of trying. I'm more of a "the journey is sometimes better than the destination" kinda person.
You seem to have extreme difficulty in answering a simply stated question
The question isn't simply stated because you've failed to mention WHAT THE BASE OF CALCUSUS IS
Decimal is not the only base
there's binary, octadecimal, hexadecimal - just listing what's used in computers.
But yes, unlike you - I've answered the question. I can get these numbers to add to 100 in base 12. And it's impossible in ANY other base. You don't have the wits to understand my proof, well that's your problem.
You aren't wasting my time at all, I'm having fun trying to figure it out. :P It's my time to chose to do with what I want to do with it. If I'd rather play with a brain teaser then say.....die of boredom trying to read an article for work, I'mma do that! XD
Unlike you, I've solved the problem, by finsing out how many solutions there are. In this case it's 0.
The only thing we get from you is your claim that you "have" it. So, you think we just have to take your word for it? That's pathetic.
and like the coward you are you accuse me of lying I don't lie .
I'm not a coward and I've posted my solution. Anyone can verify it and try to prove me wrong.
You're truly a coward because you have nothing and are afraid to admit it
Posting your solution in this debate would help establish the fact that you actually have a solution. The date of your post would be proof of your precedence. So there is absolutely NO logical reason for you not to do it.
The real reason is you got nothing and are to much of a coward to admit that.
Denial again , surely not there cannot be someone else as equally stupid as you .
Just because you believe something strongly doesn't make it true. You should know that.
No , only a hard time understanding a comment that made no sense
I hope you don't think you were insulting me with this stupid comment. I wasn't referring to myself for things you couldn't understand the first time.
So now you're sulking about the word ... sulking , so language and math are two things you don't understand
This is just further proof that you have no idea how to use that word. Keep it up. It doesn't bother me that you don't know how to use a word. I have no idea why you would think your terrible word skills would affect anyone else.
Yes just because you assumed you solved the problem doesn't make it true
Ok. But, you haven't told me there is anything wrong with my solution. Why don't you tell me what is wrong with my solution?
Again you're making no sense
Actually, that's not true. I am just talking about something different than you think. Instead if trying to talk about what I am talking about you want to switch it to what you are talking about.
Oddly enough The Cambridge English dictionary would like me disagree with you on that; but math and word skills are not your strong points are they ?
Holy shit. You actually think you are using the definition that I use. Oh man.
Let's break it down.
to be silentΒ
Well, obviously I am not silent. So, take that one off.
refuse to smile
Well, you can't tell, but I am definitely smiling at this exchange.
So, that leaves:
be pleasant to peopleΒ
With words like "good job man" and "please" it becomes very clear that I am doing everything I can to be pleasant. What do you personally consider being pleasant? Do I have to add "with a cherry on top" when I say please? Do I need to say "pretty please"? Do I have to add the word "very"? "Very good job man"? So, pretty please with a cherry on top tell me how I can be pleasant to people.
I am definitely trolling you. It is a lot of fun fucking with you. You are so fucking stupid in this debate and it is so funny to me. Just look at how many words you used incorrectly in this one post. It's so great. Thanks for the laughs.
No, why would I be upset? You on the other hand are clearly upset. Why is that?
That's all you ever really say isn't it ? So it's 'fucking ' fun to you and it's so funny to you ...... ooookay .
I thought you didn't care what other people think.
Incorrect usage of words now π You are a pedantic little prick aren't you ?
Yep. You already agreed that you have been using sulking wrong. It probably wouldn't be difficult to get you to agree that you are using a bunch of other words wrong.
So let's see it's so much 'fucking ' fun , it's so funny and it's so great .... what a sad little fuck you are .
You actually think you said something with that sentence. It's so great how easily I can fuck with you.
I'm the one laughing at you and your stupidity as in you cannot solve a simple math problem πππππ
You aren't laughing though. You are crying like a fucking bitch. Plus, only a fucking idiot would call a brain teaser a simple math problem. You don't bother me any more by thinking you solved this problem. Like many people on this site, you have me confused with someone else.
I'm actually amused at the way you keep crawling back . Why is that ?
I just told you. How many times will I have to answer that question? Oh no, you are doing that thing again where you don't read it the first time.
don't , pointing out your stupidity was on my part an act of charity .
You have a strange word choice if you actually think you are pointing out my stupidity. Everything you claim I have been doing has nothing to do with stupidity.
No . Never said I was using sulking wrong . It probably wouldn't be difficult for you too lie again
I went through the definition you provided and you admitted I am pleasant, thus not covered by the definition. The only lie is you saying that you are using the word correctly.
actually am laughing though . You are sulking like a bitch
If you are laughing it doesn't show in your posts. The only sulking here is being done by you. Look at your awful behavior in this debate.
Ah it's a brain teaser now , there's you perfect excuse for not solving it then as you lack a .... brain
Are you claiming that you never said it was a brain teaser?
Well yes I do bother you that's why you've done everything in an attempt to get the solution
You are out of your fucking mind. Quote me. Show me what you think constitutes doing everything to get the solution.
No I couldn't confuse a pedantic prick like you with someone else
So, you are just a complete fucking retard. Why do you morons always choose the worst possible scenario when dealing with me? You aren't the only one. Can you explain why you did it? Maybe that's the explanation for the other idiots who deal with me.
Ok so there can't be more than 3 two-digit summands. that stems form the Dirihle principle. The Smallest one is larger then 10 (12), the next one by value would be larger than 30 (34) and the next one larger than 50 (56). And the fourth one would be larger than 70 so the sum is >100.
Technically the answer to the question: "Can you get the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8,9 to total 100 just by adding together ?" is NO. Because, whether or not it is actually possible, I personally cannot add these numbers together to get 100 right now, and the question begins with "Can you?" So the correct answer is NO.
Also it's an unclear question - can you use 1 and 2 as 12? Or, as WinstonC said, could you re-use a number?
By induction we can find a formula for the values we can get.
Starting with 1 and 2 we get a total of 3. With 1 and 2 we can also have 12 or 21. We can subtract a value from the grand total then multiply by 10 for all numbers to get the combinations added together. 3 - 1 = 2 + 1 x 10 = 12. 3 - 2 = 1 + 2 x 10 = 21. Similarly if we examine any other combination of 2 numbers we get the same results. For example, with 2 and 3 the total is 5 and we get 5 - 2 = 3 + 2 x 10 = 23 and 5 - 3 = 2 + 3 x 10 = 23.
For 3 numbers we start with 1, 2, 3. The total is 6. We do 6 - 1 = 5 + 1 x 10 = 15. 12 + 3 = 13 + 2 = 15. And, 6 - 2 = 4 + 2 x 10 = 24. 21 + 3 = 23 + 1 = 24. So, the formula holds up for 3 numbers.
For 4 numbers we can have 2 combinations of numbers. So, we start with 1, 2, 3, 4. The total is 10. We have 10 - 3 = 7 + 3 x 10 = 37. 13 + 24 = 14 + 23 = 1 + 2 + 34 = 37.
By induction we see that the formula for determining the values you can get by adding up all numbers together as you have suggested. The sum of the numbers in the debate is 45. With the formula we know that the numbers can add up to 45 -6 = 39 + 6 x 10 = 99 or 45 - 7 = 38 + 7 x 10 = 108.
100 is not a possible value with the formula. Therefore, the mathematicians who are upset with you are correct.
Correct to be upset ? Rather sensitive souls aren't they ? Thankfully a lot of them enjoy working out creative solutions to problems such as this , either way I care not about the hurt feelings of sensitive mathematicians .
I merely put a question out there simply worded I do not force anyone to participate if mathematicians or others choose to offer a solution fine .
I do not comprehend how my reply to you demonstrates how I'm acting like an idiot , do you honestly think I should get upset over a bunch of egotistical mathematicians getting upset ?
Most including mathematicians take it in the spirit it's meant as in a fun question with a splendid solution , I do not care if you wish to get involved in name calling that's par for the course on CD and frankly quiet predictable and boring
That's not true. The way you have put it has no solution AS I HAVE PROVED.
thus my continually saying there's a solution
Then what is my proof missing?
which makes you sound like a parrot and a particularly dense one at that .
I presented an inductive proof that shows there is absolutely no way to get a solution to your problem. Your only comment was that you shouldn't care how mathematicians feel. The only dense parroting is being done by you.
You are welcome to go back and read it instead of just skipping to the last sentence.
Maybe it should be your last post .
Maybe you should give up math.
I keep bringing it up as you're still sulking
First, that's not even accurate. Second, who cares if I am sulking? I never said you should care if I am sulking. I have never implied that you should care if I am sulking. You continuing to bring up the fact that you don't care when no one says you do care really can only show you do care. It makes no sense to keep bringing it up.
Both are lost on you
God is lost on me too for the same reason.
Β amazing you cannot problem solve and you have no solution great or otherwise to a math problem
Yeah I found out it's impossible, only just now, because I actually believed Dermot that there was a solution. And was looking for it instead of checking out if it's possible in theory...What a fucking troll!
There is a beautiful solution but I'm not telling you
The beautiful solution would be for you to just admit you're a fucking troll, and stop making a clown of yourself.
There is a beautiful solution but I'm not telling you
I'n the one who has solved it. The answer to your debate question is "no", and I proved it. If you're too dumb to understand the proof, it doesn't mean the proof is wrong. Whatever you "solution" is, it's a solution to another problem, not the one stated in the debate topic.
You're correct about it being impossible, but wrong about several things.
There are a lot more possible combinations and, for these combinations, a lot more possible values for the sum. For example, with 9 digits, you can group some of them into 2-digit numbers, while adding the rest as single digit nubmers.
Your proof does not factor in all these possibilites.
Whats important is that no matter how the 9 digits are grouped into 2-digit numbers, and no matter how many of them are left as single digit numbers, the resulting sum is always of the form 45 + 9n, where n is a certain integer (actually n is the sum of the "second" digits).
And this kind of number can never be equal to 100, because if it was we could conclude that 55 is divisible by 9.
The numbers can add up to 54, 63, 72, 81, 90, 99, 108 and 117
I left out a bunch of calculations that were implied because of induction. I picked the 2 values that were closest to the target value of 100 to show there is a value smaller and larger that don't work. It was not meant to be a comprehensive list of the totals that could be achieved.
I picked the 2 values that were closest to the target value of 100 to show there is a value smaller and larger that don't work
it doesn't immediately follow from your proof that there cannot be any values inbetween. You need to prove that all of these values differ from each other by a multiple of 9.
Or at least I don't see that in your proof.
It was not meant to be a comprehensive list of the totals that could be achieved.
For the 9 digits situation you only onsidered the cases of a single 2-digit summand (the rest remaining 1 digit). I.e. the summand being 60-something and 70-something. But there can be more than one summand. In every case the value is 45 + 9xn.
"For 4 numbers we can have 2 combinations of numbers. So, we start with 1, 2, 3, 4. The total is 10. We have 10 - 3 = 7 + 3 x 10 = 37. 13 + 24 = 14 + 23 = 1 + 2 + 34 = 37."
I really seem to be missing somehitng here.
What do you mean, "for 4 numbers"?
If you are looking at the case of 4 summands, i.e. 39 + 48 + 57 + 61? Then you should not be limiting yourself to the 4 digits 1,2,3,4. Which you seem to be doing, by appealing to the sum 1+2+3+4 in this case.
In any event, my example involved multiple 2 digit summands, so you original objection was incorrect.
This is what you wrote:
"The sum of the numbers in the debate is 45. With the formula we know that the numbers can add up to 45 -6 = 39 + 6 x 10 = 99 or 45 - 7 = 38 + 7 x 10 = 108."
"39 + 6 x 10" means taking 6 out of the single digit sum and using it as a first digit, while leaving 7 of the 1-digits summands intact (and using one of them as second digit of the 2-digit summand). So just one two-digit summand here.
"38 + 7 x 10" means the same, but this time 7 is used as a first digit.
Just one two- digit summand.
If you take sereval 1-digit numbers n1,n2,n3 e.t.c., and use them as first digits for 2-digit summands, then the total will be
I'm not your audience. I've proved there is no solution for 100, and also found the general condition for the existance of a solution: S = 45 + 9n. It's also a sufficient condition, i.e. there's an algorythm for finding a correct combintation of terms, if the total sum meets the condition
Maybe there is such a problem and you have solved it, but you haven't shown that to be true. As usual, you expect me to take your word for it. But your word is worth nothing, this very debate is proof to that.
I've just solved it and proved to you that there's no such combination of terms to give the sum 100. Furthermore, I've establised a neccesary and sufficient condition for when this is possible for the total sum S:
S minus the sum of the digits used must be divisible evenly by 9.
This is called maths. Your trolling is called bullshit.
(I really hope you're just trolling and not actually a challenged person).
I must only be familiar with the American definition of sulking. I must only be familiar with the American definition of sulking. I am sorry to say, I don't understand it the way you use it. I am sorry to say, I don't understand it the way you use it.
Remarkable , a very simply worded question with instructions to do exactly what it says and it's now ambiguous
Of course it's ambiguous you intellectually backward troll. Do you mean you can repeat the numbers or just use them once? Do you mean you keep following the sequence after 9 or go back to 1? Do you mean you have to use each listed number or are they optional?
why is it mostly Americans have such a hard time with a simply worded question ?