+505 What is
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1x0+1
This is just for fun. I already know the answer. It may be unexpected. This is just for all you to solve
+505 I'll give you a hint. I did not write it like 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1x0+1
+505 2!! This was very tricky because only the bottom line matters. You see, they were not connected by +s, so each line was separate from the others.
+505 I'll show you how it works.
1+1+1+1
This is one line.
1+1+1+1
This is another line.
You get it right.
Only the bottom line counts.
1+1x0+1=2
1+(1x0)+1=2!!!
Did you see that coming?
+746 no lol. That was so cool I posted a math riddle now. See if you can figure it out Mobius.
+118673 It is really good to see the group of you playing on the forum like this. It is exactly what what I want.
People to have some fun with numbers 
MobiusLoops has given you an excellent lesson in interpreting what is there ... NOT what you imagine is there. 
+2489 This math question (if it could be called that) is BS! There is enough ambiguity to give credence to several answers, or to none. There is no consensus among mathematicians (professional or amateur) for a correct solution. (There is a consensus for what isn’t a solution.)
While the question is plain BS, the solution you posted in #19 is pure BS!
1+1+1+1
This is one line.
1+1+1+1
This is another line.
You get it right.
Only the bottom line counts.
1+1x0+1=2
1+(1x0)+1=2!!!
What makes the final line valid and the lines above it invalid? Does the multiplication sign or the zero have magical powers? It seems that it does.
This incredibly incompetent bullshit comes from a YouTube post by user Jack Rosenfeld stating:
“Having a cousin as a math teacher confirmed what I already knew. The only ‘legitimate’ equation in the problem is LINE 3. LINES 1&2 are meaningless and obviously put there to trick or confuse potential problem solvers. Nowhere in the example does it even IMPLY that all 3 lines must be used to obtain an answer, therefore the obvious solution is ‘2’, as follows 1+(1×0)+1=2. Math is simply nothing but logic and you can’t ASSUME things that aren’t stated. End of story.”
One clear warning sign for incompetence is the use of arbitrary (emotional) reasoning veiled in flawed logic.
His logic is chaotic and contradictory. He tells us not to assume things that aren’t stated, but it seems to be OK to ignore things that are. “Math is nothing but logic,” but nothing he writes is consistently logical. This contagious batshit incompetence is confirmed by a math teacher.
Well, that certainly “ends the story” for me! This seal of approval is second only to that of the God(s) of Math. I’m so overwhelmed and awed by this intellectual brilliance that I’m going to shed my genetic enhancement and return to the trees of my ancestors.
An important theme to remember while studying and learning mathematics (or any subject) is there are many more wrong answers than correct answers. Part of the learning process is to recognize and repel stupid and dumb. Repelling this will help to keep you from embracing it.
GA
+505 Hello GingerAle. I like your name. Ginger Ale is my favorite drink. What's yours?
+118673 LOL Ginger
The answer that I see is 4,4,4,2
There are four different questions it is just the grammar that is a little suspect.
If the kids want to play with it and see something different what is the harm in that?
I will most likely get a mouthful now but I guess I can handle it.
+2489 We chimps do have powerful jaws and big mouths. This is handy for cracking tough nuts and keeping our hands free while foraging. I’ll try keep the mouthful to a minimum.
Playful thoughts:
There is an instinct to give cautionary warnings to children to “be careful” while playing. When children are playing with math and science, a general warning should always be “Do not embrace the philosophies of the brain-dead and intellectually disturbed.” It’s OK to entertain yourself and others with this drivel, but embracing it will alter your perception of reality and make it easier to accept the next cup-full of drivel. (ML appears to have embraced this.)
Rosenfeld’s delivers his preposterous postulates with all the undertones of “The Emperor's New Clothes.” That is, you are stupid or incompetent if you don’t see this this as fact. There is not a hint of sarcasm; so he’s either a fool of fools, or a troll attempting to making a fool of everyone. He did a good job. Many adults on that Youtube post embrace his theory, including the original poster of the video--who is not a mathematician, but a service provider for real estate investors. (I’d not be inclined to employ his services.)
GA
