I forgot: 20 If you see 9 squares, 4 of which make up 1 square + 5 remaining squares + The square that contains all I forgot ... the 4 single squares that form a square inside the square that encloses all
20 = 4 x original 16.25 = 4 x original - 0.75xoriginal{to account for overlap} 14 = count of squares 12 = no. of intersections made by internal lines 10 = no. of intrernal squares + 1 outer square 7 = total no of intersections{incl. corners} - no. of internal squares
The answer is 14. It is how many squares in the diagram. For the first one, there is 4 small squares and one large square. For the second one, there are 9 small squares, 4 medium squares, and 1 large square, giving a total of 14.
Corina Marinescu One data point without explanation is not enough.
I assume you know what 2 + 2, 2 * 2, and 2 ^ 2 equal. If I were to give you the following problem, what would the answer be?
2 ♡ 2 = 4 3 ♡ 3 = ?
Only knowing that ♡ represents "some operator", we can't answer the question. It could be 6 (if ♡ is addition), 9 (if ♡ is multiplication), or 27 (if ♡ is exponentiation), or some other value (we have some clever people here, I'm sure they can come up something).
Likewise, with your photo, there are several ways to get 5 from the first image:
-- Number of squares of any size -- Number of squares of 1 or 2 units -- Number of intersections (not corners) -- Number of side intersections + 1 -- Number of intersections with an even number of paths ... as well as others. These return different values for the second image, respectively: -- 14 -- 13 -- 12 -- 9 -- 8
Answer is 7 Ref first answer being 5 ( I think it could be because 9 crosses or intersections minus the number of small boxes within the large one so that 4 ) So 16 - 9 = 7
Problem with math nerds...they always think at the complicated solution....data is sufficient. I gave u a simple square with a value, if I wanted to know the number of intersections, I'd have said more info to point in that direction ... I understand ur point Paul
I'm not going to debate about this with u Paul...in my opinion the post has enough data, u think different...end of the story. And just to clarify since is my floor, my drawing, my photo and my post...yep I'm "the teacher of this post".
14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14 squares
12 - number of intersections made by internal lines
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDeleteAnswer is 14.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is what's the mathematical equation?
I think it is Sum of n^2 . Isn't it?
14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDeleteYep I was gonna go with 14 also.
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDeleteSandeep Tulpule yes that's correct. so for this one, it's
ReplyDelete1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2
I ask the questions on this post since I'm the teacher :))
ReplyDelete21
ReplyDeleteEdit: My bad, it is 14 and not 21 ^^
I agree with the 14, 9 1x1 squares, 4 2x2 squares and 1 3x3 square
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete1 + 4 + 9 = 14
ReplyDeleteGeneral equation: 1 + 4 + ... + n^2 = n·(n+1)·(n + n + 1)/6
14
ReplyDelete13 - number of squares plus number of intersections.
ReplyDeletewe would most certainly need a 3rd example to be-able to make any intelligent assumptions.
14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete11.25 : 5/4=1.25 -> 1.25*9=11.25
ReplyDelete10 excuse my error :P
ReplyDelete7
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletedepends on the logic of how it is viewed:
10 if you see 9 squares
+ The square containing them
16 if you see 9 squares, 4 of which make up 1 square
+ 5 remaining squares
+ The square that contains all
..
ReplyDeleteFor sure 14
ReplyDelete5 junctions -> 12
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDeleteFor the "total number of squares" solution does anyone have a link for OEIS.
ReplyDelete10?
ReplyDelete12 = intersections.
ReplyDeleteNd Onodugo Negative
ReplyDelete10.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this question is about the number of squares.. 14
ReplyDeleteyep
ReplyDeleteI forgot: 20
ReplyDeleteIf you see 9 squares, 4 of which make up 1 square
+ 5 remaining squares
+ The square that contains all
I forgot ... the 4 single squares that form a square inside the square that encloses all
Laura B When it comes 2x2 rows and columns, take the squares of 2 and 1 (4+1=5)
ReplyDeletewhen 3x3 take the squares of 3, 2 and 1 (9+4+1=14)
thank you, Corina Marinescu I thought of a logical of points of view. :)
ReplyDelete...And I was having fun :))
Laura B It's always fun to play with math.. I know :) Even my love still is physics ;)
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Corina Marinescu :D
ReplyDeleteMANAS SRINIVAS Cannot be, counting all the squares will be 14.
ReplyDelete15
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete9*(1*1)
ReplyDelete4*(2*2)
1*(3*3)
_________
14squares
14
ReplyDelete* 14 (#squares)
ReplyDelete* 10 (regions in the plane)
* 7 (sqr of (1+segments*2))
* 7 (#lines - 1)
* 5 (corners + 1)
* 12 (#vertexs - 4)
* ...
20 (4 configs of the original model)
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete14 (all possible squares)
ReplyDeletecould be anything
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete22
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete20 - 5 overlapped - 1 = 14
ReplyDeleteI'm saying 12 as it doesn't say anything about counting squares.
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDeleteT K Briggs If u saw the answer at the first square and this ? sign at the second....what other info would u like me to tell u?
ReplyDeleteI think it's obvious ;)
ReplyDelete12?
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete12 if we are counting intersections....14 if we are counting squares
ReplyDelete10
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDeleteIf we were counting intersections, the first box would be 9, not 5. Corners count too. ;-)
ReplyDelete11.5, if we are talking about area comparison............however, if you are talking about amount of squares, the answer would be 14.
ReplyDeletePatrick Glenning I think we might be counting amount of squares. I could be wrong.
ReplyDelete10
ReplyDeleteInsufficient data. Several answers are defensible.
ReplyDelete14 if squares, 7 if # of lines -1, or also 7 if its the number of wood lanes covered by the figure
ReplyDeleteUmmm...data is quite sufficient. U know the answer to the first square...
ReplyDeleteOr 10 if # of squares plus 1.
ReplyDelete7 or 20
ReplyDelete5 regions in the first graph, 10 in the second?
ReplyDelete20 = 4 x original
ReplyDelete16.25 = 4 x original - 0.75xoriginal{to account for overlap}
14 = count of squares
12 = no. of intersections made by internal lines
10 = no. of intrernal squares + 1 outer square
7 = total no of intersections{incl. corners} - no. of internal squares
5 It's square
ReplyDeleteThe answer is 14. It is how many squares in the diagram. For the first one, there is 4 small squares and one large square. For the second one, there are 9 small squares, 4 medium squares, and 1 large square, giving a total of 14.
ReplyDeleteCorina Marinescu One data point without explanation is not enough.
ReplyDeleteI assume you know what 2 + 2, 2 * 2, and 2 ^ 2 equal. If I were to give you the following problem, what would the answer be?
2 ♡ 2 = 4
3 ♡ 3 = ?
Only knowing that ♡ represents "some operator", we can't answer the question. It could be 6 (if ♡ is addition), 9 (if ♡ is multiplication), or 27 (if ♡ is exponentiation), or some other value (we have some clever people here, I'm sure they can come up something).
Likewise, with your photo, there are several ways to get 5 from the first image:
-- Number of squares of any size
-- Number of squares of 1 or 2 units
-- Number of intersections (not corners)
-- Number of side intersections + 1
-- Number of intersections with an even number of paths
... as well as others. These return different values for the second image, respectively:
-- 14
-- 13
-- 12
-- 9
-- 8
There is insufficient data to select.
Answer is 7
ReplyDeleteRef first answer being 5 ( I think it could be because 9 crosses or intersections minus the number of small boxes within the large one so that 4 )
So 16 - 9 = 7
Damon Getsman Read my longer comment, third from the end. That should give you the gist.
ReplyDeleteProblem with math nerds...they always think at the complicated solution....data is sufficient. I gave u a simple square with a value, if I wanted to know the number of intersections, I'd have said more info to point in that direction ... I understand ur point Paul
ReplyDeleteCorina Marinescu wrote, "Problem with math nerds..."
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, you're aware that you posted this to the Mathematics community, and even had the hubris to call yourself "the teacher", yes?
I'm not going to debate about this with u Paul...in my opinion the post has enough data, u think different...end of the story. And just to clarify since is my floor, my drawing, my photo and my post...yep I'm "the teacher of this post".
ReplyDeleteGood teachers listen to student complaints.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with that Paul....that's why I'll stick to my hubris
ReplyDelete14
ReplyDelete