Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Annoying IQ Test

Annoying IQ Test

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
question
42 Posts 17 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • U unknowndentified10111

    Someone ask me this IQ Test and I got really annoyed when I found out the answer. Here it is: If 1 = 5, and 2 = 125, and 3 = 450, and 4 = 1250, then 5 = ?

    M Offline
    M Offline
    markovl
    wrote on last edited by
    #2

    It's obviously 1 :)

    (1 == 5 => 5 == 1 )

    2A

    L A 3 Replies Last reply
    0
    • M markovl

      It's obviously 1 :)

      (1 == 5 => 5 == 1 )

      2A

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #3

      Thought the same, but it probably should read more like f(1) = 5, f(2) = 125 ... and in the end we are supposed to figure out what exactly f is and calculate f(5)

      I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

      M 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Lost User

        Thought the same, but it probably should read more like f(1) = 5, f(2) = 125 ... and in the end we are supposed to figure out what exactly f is and calculate f(5)

        I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

        M Offline
        M Offline
        markovl
        wrote on last edited by
        #4

        Maybe, if it was a math problem, but given that it's logic (IQ Test), most times the answer is hidden in plain sight.

        2A

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M markovl

          It's obviously 1 :)

          (1 == 5 => 5 == 1 )

          2A

          L Offline
          L Offline
          Lost User
          wrote on last edited by
          #5

          If that's really an equivalence on integers, I'm pretty sure it can be proven that x = y for all x and y that are integers. edit: actually, I'm not sure anymore. If this equivalence is assumed, do the usual integer axioms still hold? Is math still possible?

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • U unknowndentified10111

            Someone ask me this IQ Test and I got really annoyed when I found out the answer. Here it is: If 1 = 5, and 2 = 125, and 3 = 450, and 4 = 1250, then 5 = ?

            L Offline
            L Offline
            leppie
            wrote on last edited by
            #6

            Normally an IQ will provide you a multiple choice of answers. Else I will be playing my leppie's function card!

            IronScheme
            ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

            D 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • L leppie

              Normally an IQ will provide you a multiple choice of answers. Else I will be playing my leppie's function card!

              IronScheme
              ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

              D Offline
              D Offline
              Dalek Dave
              wrote on last edited by
              #7

              Isn't that just an invite to your next soirée?

              ------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • U unknowndentified10111

                Someone ask me this IQ Test and I got really annoyed when I found out the answer. Here it is: If 1 = 5, and 2 = 125, and 3 = 450, and 4 = 1250, then 5 = ?

                L Offline
                L Offline
                leppie
                wrote on last edited by
                #8

                4500?

                IronScheme
                ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                CPalliniC 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L leppie

                  4500?

                  IronScheme
                  ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                  CPalliniC Offline
                  CPalliniC Offline
                  CPallini
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #9

                  Why not 50000000? :-D

                  If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
                  This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
                  [My articles]

                  In testa che avete, signor di Ceprano?

                  D 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • CPalliniC CPallini

                    Why not 50000000? :-D

                    If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
                    This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
                    [My articles]

                    D Offline
                    D Offline
                    Dalek Dave
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #10

                    Because that is reserved for larger values of Pi.

                    ------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      If that's really an equivalence on integers, I'm pretty sure it can be proven that x = y for all x and y that are integers. edit: actually, I'm not sure anymore. If this equivalence is assumed, do the usual integer axioms still hold? Is math still possible?

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #11

                      I think I'm onto the right way, but don't have it quite right yet: if there really is a function f(x), so that f(1) = 5, f(2) = 125, f(3) = 450 and f(4) = 1250 then this may help f(1) = 5 = 5^1 = 5^x f(2) = 125 = 5^3 = 5 ^ (x+1) = 5 * 5^x f(3) = 450 = 3.6 * 5^x f(4) = 1250 = 2 * 5^x At least I have found a way to show that all values are multiples of 5^x. If we bring this into the right form, we probably will quickly see the solution. Edit My current guess for f(5) would be around 5^x = 5^5 = 3125

                      I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • U unknowndentified10111

                        Someone ask me this IQ Test and I got really annoyed when I found out the answer. Here it is: If 1 = 5, and 2 = 125, and 3 = 450, and 4 = 1250, then 5 = ?

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        leppie
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #12

                        2795 :) f(x) = round(-179.9813978 + 307.4704136*x + -167.4867127*x*x + 44.99822836*x*x*x)

                        IronScheme
                        ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                        CPalliniC G 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • L Lost User

                          I think I'm onto the right way, but don't have it quite right yet: if there really is a function f(x), so that f(1) = 5, f(2) = 125, f(3) = 450 and f(4) = 1250 then this may help f(1) = 5 = 5^1 = 5^x f(2) = 125 = 5^3 = 5 ^ (x+1) = 5 * 5^x f(3) = 450 = 3.6 * 5^x f(4) = 1250 = 2 * 5^x At least I have found a way to show that all values are multiples of 5^x. If we bring this into the right form, we probably will quickly see the solution. Edit My current guess for f(5) would be around 5^x = 5^5 = 3125

                          I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          leppie
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #13

                          I went brute force ;p See my latest answer.

                          IronScheme
                          ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                          L 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L leppie

                            2795 :) f(x) = round(-179.9813978 + 307.4704136*x + -167.4867127*x*x + 44.99822836*x*x*x)

                            IronScheme
                            ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                            CPalliniC Offline
                            CPalliniC Offline
                            CPallini
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #14

                            50000000 :) algo:

                            switch(in)
                            {
                            case 1:
                            return 5;
                            case 2:
                            return 125;
                            case 3:
                            return 450;
                            case 4:
                            return 1250;
                            default:
                            return 50000000;
                            }

                            :laugh:

                            If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
                            This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
                            [My articles]

                            In testa che avete, signor di Ceprano?

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L leppie

                              2795 :) f(x) = round(-179.9813978 + 307.4704136*x + -167.4867127*x*x + 44.99822836*x*x*x)

                              IronScheme
                              ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                              G Offline
                              G Offline
                              Gary Wheeler
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #15

                              Wolfram Alpha, anyone? Or is Mathematica your bitch?

                              Software Zen: delete this;

                              L 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • D Dalek Dave

                                Because that is reserved for larger values of Pi.

                                ------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]

                                L Offline
                                L Offline
                                Lost User
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #16

                                My current guess would be 5^x = 3125

                                I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • G Gary Wheeler

                                  Wolfram Alpha, anyone? Or is Mathematica your bitch?

                                  Software Zen: delete this;

                                  L Offline
                                  L Offline
                                  leppie
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #17

                                  Gary Wheeler wrote:

                                  Wolfram Alpha, anyone? Or is Mathematica your bitch?

                                  Neither. Used http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa[^] :) Trying to find an 'integer' solution though. But 4 points is a little too little to infer a pattern :(

                                  IronScheme
                                  ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • L leppie

                                    I went brute force ;p See my latest answer.

                                    IronScheme
                                    ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                                    L Offline
                                    L Offline
                                    Lost User
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #18

                                    Do me one favor: Please try out the factors of 1, 5, 3.6 and 2 I got for X = 1, 2, 3 ,4 in this math software. What factor would be for x = 5?

                                    I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

                                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • L Lost User

                                      Do me one favor: Please try out the factors of 1, 5, 3.6 and 2 I got for X = 1, 2, 3 ,4 in this math software. What factor would be for x = 5?

                                      I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      leppie
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #19

                                      Not quite sure how to input that into the software :(

                                      IronScheme
                                      ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • L leppie

                                        Not quite sure how to input that into the software :(

                                        IronScheme
                                        ((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x)))

                                        L Offline
                                        L Offline
                                        Lost User
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #20

                                        input the points (1,1), (2,5), (3, 3.6) and (4, 2). I would like to know the value for (5, ?). I guessed that value to be 1 and then f(5) would be 3125. If your program can extrapolate a more precise value, we will se how good your brute force result and mine match.

                                        I'm invincible, I can't be vinced

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • U unknowndentified10111

                                          Someone ask me this IQ Test and I got really annoyed when I found out the answer. Here it is: If 1 = 5, and 2 = 125, and 3 = 450, and 4 = 1250, then 5 = ?

                                          R Offline
                                          R Offline
                                          Ravi Sant
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #21

                                          13750

                                          // ♫ 99 little bugs in the code, // 99 bugs in the code // We fix a bug, compile it again // 101 little bugs in the code ♫

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups