Well?

>>8279629

96

Some 5 star poster you are

File: IMG_0778.png (17KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 120x120px

>>8279630
Why did you multiply?

>>8279630
It's actually 40

>>8279631

Because that has been cropped off the edge but I have a wide screen

>>8279638
No. It's 40.

>>8279643

Get a bigger monitor

>>8279629
40

96

If you take it for just what it is then it's 40, if you take it as a pattern it's 96

>>8279629
>>8279643
It's either first number plus second number plus previous result
>8 + 11 (+ 21) = 40
or first number times the second number incremented by one
>8 * (11 + 2) = 96

When your equalities are plain wrong, one can interpret the notation to mean whatever you want. You would've said it's 96 if the other guy answered 40. Now take your shit thread back to /v/

Those who have more patternal thinking answer 96
Those who are more straightforward answer 40.

>>8279629
32 you faggots

>>8279666

What if you answer 19

>>8279629
4*1+1=1
5*2+2=12
6*3+3=21
11*8+8=96
Now pissoff.

>>8279671
Get out. Just leave.

>>8279677
What the fuck is this nonsense...

>>8279629
92

>>8279680

That's how it looks if it was to have a 4 + 7, 5 + 8 etc, so as a pattern

>>8279680
the first number represents the number of your step.
the 2nd number represents the number you add to the step.

so:

(n+3).n+n=answer.

step 8 is

(8+3).8+8=96.

q.e.d why questions like this are autism

>>8279680
>he doesnt notice the terms are just multiply one number followed by summing the product with the number you used for multiplication

>>8279700
>>8279689
>>8279694
Fuck off and fuck you.

>>8279667
5->12=7, 12->21=9, 21->32=11

>>8279629
51

File: death! death!.gif (60KB, 153x153px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 153x153px

>>8279707
There are MANY ways to interpet this question.

14+26= 38+x? x=2.
see? i just multiplied from top down and found the missing as two.

Why are any of you multiplying?

>>8279716
I know you're baiting but there's a pattern in the terms when using multiplication, too bad you're too stupid to see more than one interpretation. I forgot it's burger hour.

>>8279716
Because you can do it like that, you can add them, too.

>>8279716
2+5=12 is false, if we interpret the symbols as usual.
The + symbol can then be interpreted as any binary operation that explains the pattern.

File: IMG_0898.jpg (36KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x360px

>>8279725
I'm not baiting. I got into a lengthy debate with a relative. He says 96. I say 40. I can see why he says 96. He can't see why I say 40.

I say he's doing more than necessary.

>>8279716
because it's facebook-tier like-bait that wants you to use steps that aren't actually mentioned to solve questions that don't make sense if you look at them by themselves

>>8279749
Pro-tip: Einstein would've said it's 96, 40 is for basic bitches who can't deal with math.

>>8279629
52.

>>8279629
40

76

42

>>8279778
Insecure faggot.

>>8279629
-1/12

>>8279629
96

>>8279629
>1+4 = 5
Correct
>2 + 5 =12
Incorrect
>3 + 6 = 21
Incorrect
>8 + 11 = 19

1 + 4*1 = 5
2 + 2*5 = 12
3 + 3*6 = 21
8 + 8*11 = 96

96 || 52

>>8279677
>4*1+1=1

>>8279913
this guy knows what he's talking about

>>8279629
92

>>8279938
disagree

>>8279630
same as I got

>>8279629
Yep, 96.

its 96

realy diffucult how you only have to figgure out that small one thing that wasn't shown.

40

>>8279629
40

>>8279629
92

duh

>>8279629
it's 3.14158 clearly

>>8279913
retard

>>8280081
this

8*12

Isnt the pattern
1 * (4+1)
2 * (5+1)
3 * (6+1)
8 * (11+1) = 96

Haven't seen it posted yet.

>>8280130
No, the pattern is that they are exactly the elements of the function

F={ ((1,4),5) , ((2,5),12), ((3,6),21), ((8,11),-1/12) }

So obviously the answer is -1/12

>m-muh arbitrary pattern

It's the sum of all the numbers, you just need to fill in the blanks for the intervening numbers.

5+7 = 12, 9 + 12 = 21, etc.

>>8279629
40 all day you retards. Took me once glance. Literally 5-8 seconds of thought

>>8280156
It was already proven by >>8280150 that the answer is -1/12

You dum dumb.

You guys are actually putting more thought into this than whoever made that pic.

>>8279916
>1 + 4*1=5

>>8280130
Yeah that could be the pattern, only there is no reason for you to have added an extra 1 in the first instance or to have multiplied, so you are essentially do the wrong sum. the answer is 40, but 96 is acceptable at a stretch.

Someone please explain how the fuck they got 40.

The answer is clearly 96 you retarded fucks.

>>8280176
the answer if clearly 4 you stupid fucking faggot

>>8280171
>you are essentially do the wrong sum. the answer is 40, but 96 is acceptable at a stretch
that's not how things work. "looks better" is not something valid

It's 40.

40 of course !

>>8280176
The two numbers plus the previous answer.
1+4+0 = 5
2+5+5= 12
3+6+12= 21
8+11+21= 40

It's what I saw real quick, the 96 answer is also interesting.

why some jerk think that answer is 40? are you ok? and do you have brain? seriously

>>8279630
>retardation
40

>>8280287
>retardation

-1/12
>>8280150

>>8279629
Besides 40 and 96, you can get 52 also.

1 + 4 * 1 = 5
2 + 5 * 2 = 12
3 + 6 * 3 = 21
8 + 11 * 4 = 52

>>8279658
Eh, isn't 96 the proper solution, occam's razor and all that (because it doesn't involve the previous result)?

>>8280306
>occam's razor

Occam's razor would indicate that the answer is -1/12 as >>8280150 showed.

Obviously given that it is a function that just exists out there in the universe. No method was used at all, there is not even a hypothesis. That function was just invoked.

>>8280309
>Occam's razor would indicate that the answer is -1/12 as >>8280150 showed.

I would say the rule "first plus first times second" is simpler than defining this set.

I think occam's razor is for 96.

>>8279630
It's this. Normies btfo.

>>8280312
>simpler than defining this set.

What set is being defined? None. This set just exists out there in the universe.

For all we know I had a stroke, my head fell to the keyboard and hit just the exact keys that wrote that set. Then when I was able to get a hold of myself I looked at it and said
>Hey, that's pretty good

(4 x 1) + 1 = 5
(2 x 5) + 2 = 12
(3 x 6) + 3 = 21
...
(8 x 11) + 8 = 96
...
a + b = (a x b) + a

>>8279629
40 methinks.

32 because I saw a pattern in the results.
Every result is the previous one plus the difference between the last two results plus 2.
12=5+7
21=12+9
32=21+11

>>8279629
67 by vacuous truth.

Preceding statement was false. Vacuous truth applies.

76

>>8280261

Same here, except I saw the 96 answer first because I thought assumed it would be harder.

In fact if it were on a test, I would put all of the possible answers.

>>8280326
>This set just exists out there in the universe.

That's not how maths works. You can't just say "the proof exists out there in the universe, so it's true" and the like.

If you need to explicitly list the set (which you do), then it is more complex than "first plus first times second".

>>8280345
>Every result is the previous one plus the difference between the last two results plus 2.
>expect for the first case where it doesn't work

That's 4 characteristics for 4 equations. With that, you can actually select any arbitrary result as with >>8280150

But it's the incorrect result per occam's razor.

>>8280261
>1+4+0 = 5

Where did you get the 0 from? Or did you just arbitrarily define it?

96 is the most correct answer.

>>8279629
40

File: 350580cbeb13d7d60bd1f1cd24f72209 (1).jpg (31KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x280px

>>8279629
How many "geniuses" has /sci/ trolled the shit out of?

19 here. I swear some of you have two standard deviations below normal IQ.

>>8279629
19

you got every other problem wrong though

>>8280401
What is before the first case (1+4)?
I didn't look deep into this because I'm a scrub at math and I failed linear algebra and all the other first year courses so there's not much to look into imo. Could you tell me why my solution >>8280345
doesn't work?

>>8279632
/thread

40

>>8279629
Well, OP, you got problem 1 correct, 2 and 3 wrong, and you apparently didn't know the answer to problem 4, so you just drew in a question mark.
You really are retarded.

>>8279629
96

File: LOL.jpg (32KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 620x350px

>>8281527
being this retarded
literal epsilon tier
work in the sewers

>>8281534
What did you say? I can't understand what you're saying because your English skills are complete ass.

>>8279629
[math]a_{n+1}=a_{n}+(n+(n+3)) \\n \geq 2 [/math]

File: BqJHkZJ.png (799KB, 1600x1073px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1600x1073px

>>8280287
Both answers work.

File: what the shit.gif (984KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 250x188px

>>8281546
>can't understand
>can't understand three by three lines

>>8279629
1+4=5
2+5=7+5
3+6=12+9
8+11=19+21

40

File: super genius troll post.jpg (671KB, 2064x2076px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 2064x2076px

>>8279629

The answer is 96. Here's why:

You add 1+4, that equals 5. Before you added the 1 and 4, you had 0 total, so 5+0=5

Now you add 2+5, that equals 7. Add 7, plus the previous total of 5, to give you 12.

Again, 3+6=9. 9 plus the previous 12 equals 21.

Note that the first number increases by 1. (1,2,3, etc et 8). The second added number increases by one as well, but starts at 4 (4,5,6, etc etc 11). This means you can continue the pattern like pic related.

When you follow the previous explanation above all the way to 8+11, you'll get 8+11 is 19, plus the prior number of 77, which gives you 96.

Not really a genius test as much as a pattern recognition test.....is this a troll?

File: 1471519544195.jpg (70KB, 694x695px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 694x695px

>>8279629
this is a normie meme so you need a normie dum dum like me to solve it. the answer is 52 and here is my method pic related. pls tell me if i am wrong

>>8282154
i agree with this as well

~~~ # OFFICIAL GENIUS ANSWERS SO FAR # ~~~

96, 40, 52

ALL OTHER ANSWERS WRONG UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

>>8282458
[math]1+4=5[/math]
[math]5mod4=1[/math]

[math]2+5=12[/math]
[math]12mod5=2[/math]

[math]3+6=21[/math]
[math]21mod6=3[/math]

[math]8+11=?[/math]
[math]?mod11=8[/math]

[math]?[/math] is the set of numbers that satisfy 11k+8 where k is some integer

>>8282466
you can add this >>8282491 answer to the list

>>8280404
>Where did 0 come from?
srsly?

Its actually 19.
True geniuses dont fuck with math and would ignore the 3 equations above

>>8279629
40. Previous answer plus current sum.
1+4=5
2+5=7 => 7+5=12
3+6=9 => 9+12=21
8+11=19 => 19+21=40

~~~ # OFFICIAL GENIUS ANSWERS SO FAR # ~~~

96, 40, 52 , [eqn]?=\{11k+8 : k \in \mathbb{Z}\}[/eqn]

ALL OTHER ANSWERS WRONG UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

>>8279716
Because it says "share if you got it"

If it was the straightforward answer then they wouldn't put that there.

>>8282533
What about my -1/12?

It is as valid as the ones you named.

~~~# OFFICIAL GENIUS ANSWERS SO FAR #~~~

[math]?=96[/math]
[math]?=40[/math]
[math]?=52[/math]
[math]?=\{11k+8 : k\in \mathbb{Z} \}[/math]

File: answer.png (3KB, 219x156px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 219x156px

>>8279629

40.
The double of n+2

96

The trend I'm seeing is: First number plus (second number times first number)

1 + 4 = 5
2 + 5 = 12 ((2+5) + 5)
3 + 6 = 21 ((3+6) + 12)
4 + 7 = 32 ((4+7) + 21)
5 + 8 = 45 ((5+8) + 32)
6 + 9 = 60 ((6+9) + 45)
7 + 10 = 77 ((7+10) + 60)
8 + 11 = 96 ((8 + 11) + 77)

52 isn't it?

>>8279629
Pattern:
1+4 = 5
2 + 5 = 12
3 + 6 = 21
4 + 7 = 32
5 + 8 = 45
6 + 9 = 60
7 + 10 = 77
8 + 11 = 96

>>8279629
>2 + 5 = 12
L0L as if
Lrn2addition fgt pls

>>8282491
Which means the answer is still 96
5 mod4 = 5/4 = 1 Remainder 1
12/5 = 2 R2
21/6 = 3 R3
Therefore:
96mod11 = 96/11 = 8 R8

>>8284226
Writing the answers in the base systems:
1+4 = 11 >base4
2+5 = 22 >base5
3+6 = 33 >base6
8+11 = 88 >base11

File: AllYourBases.png (159KB, 1292x601px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1292x601px

I once found a similar problem that was mathematically accurate by chaning the Base on each side of the equality. In this case, that does not seem to be true. While there are base-changes that can render each of the statements true, it does not provide insight into the correct answer for 8+11=?

>>8280094
>Can't recognize a joke
Autism

>>8279630
Anyone who doesn't get 96 is a complete retard

>>8282509
Yes it should have been

>1+4+indeterminate

40fags kill yourselves immediately

1+4 is 1*5
2+5 is 2*6
3+6 is 3*7
8+11 is 8*12

its 96

>>8279629
4+7=32
5+8=45
6+9=60
7+10=77
8+11=96

File: tmp_6977-IMG_20160821_104234801-624788471.jpg (3MB, 4008x5344px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4008x5344px

Even if you follow the other pattern you are missing part of it. X*Y+X always works.

>>8279667
I got that answer as well by viewing the sums as a sequence and finding the arthmetic difference. Each difference between them is being increased by 2

>>8279629
>1+4=5
>2+5=12
Use the answer from the previous questiom 5+2+5=12 and 12+3+6=21

21+8+11=40

File: 1448323520297.gif (3MB, 298x224px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 298x224px

>>8279629
>"problem" with multiple valid solutions

The only genius here is the one that made this image.

>>8279629
You always add the previous number too. Piss easy.

>>8279629
Just follow the easy patterning and add the rest of everything to better show it:

1+4=5
2+5=12
3+6=21
4+7=32
5+8=45
6+9=60
7+10=77
8+11=96
9+12=117

>>8279630
Is correct.

I think it should be 92. Define x+y to be (x*y)+[position of equation in the list]

4*1+1=5
5*2+2=12
6*3+3=21
8*11+4=92

But, it's all arbitrary nonsense anyways. Fuck this thread.

>>8279630

Thats what I got as well.

5
7
9
19
Keep your retardations away, far away.

I like 96

can see 40 too.... why is this still going on?
obviously depends on rule set, and several rule sets fit the data.... can we let this go now?

>>8279629

Yea ok I solved it.

And I can assure you, I am no genius.

>>8288720
1*4 = 4 + 1 = 5
2*5 = 10 + 2 = 12

etc..

So is it somekind of competition among smartasses to make completely false questions and force the reader to figure out the pattern?

Sounds like something a teacher of a shitty class would have to do routinely.

File: 45908801.jpg (78KB, 404x300px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 404x300px

>>8279629
1+4=5
2+5=7
3+6=9
8+11=19

>>8279629
1*4 + 1 = 5
2*5 + 2 = 12
3*6 + 3 = 21
...
8*11 + 8 = 96

File: 1470806624648.jpg (70KB, 480x813px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 480x813px

>>8279629
19

The two in the middle are wrong btw

>>8282568
>valid

stay pleb, but seriously learn into what valid actually means. you and every cunt will say anything is valid when you mean true, which acktually isnt a valid thing to say

>>8279629
My answer is 10101010101010101010101010101010101010 in -1-nary system
1+4=5 in 6-nary system
2+5=12 in 5-nary system (1*5+2*1=7)
3+6=21 in 4-nary system (2*4+1*1=9)

Also 7+10 is rather undefined

>>8279629
>8+11 =/= 19
thansk common core

>>8279629
1 + 4 = 5
2 + 5 = 7 in real math, but in this case it's 12, aka 5(sum of previous line) + 7(real sum) = 12
similarly, 3+6 = 21 = 9(real sum of line) + 12(sum of previous line)
therefore:
4 + 7 = 11 + 21 = 32
5 + 8 = 13 + 32 = 45
6 + 9 = 60
7 + 10 = 77
8 + 11 = 19 + 77 = 96

The correct answer is 96

>>8279629
96 derp

>>8279629
Always switch doors

>>8279629
8 + 11 = 0 because fuck you that's why.

>>8291872

I approached it differently.
1 + 4 -> 1+ 1x4 = 5
2 + 5 -> 2 + 2x5 = 12
3 + 6 -> 3 + 3x6 = 21
8 + 11 -> 8 + 8x11 = 96

>>8279629
The pattern is so obvious, the third number is always bigger than either of the first two. Final answer:100008934749937874

>>8279629
Go back to Facebook
Also 96

1+4=5
5+2+5=12
12+3+6=21
21+4+7=32
32+5+8=45
45+6+9=60
60+7+10=77
77+8+11=96

96