Here's a better math problem:
A college department has ordered 200 computers containing AMD and Intel processors for all of its computer labs, replacing all systems in the process. Only Dells and HPs were ordered. 87 of the computers are Dells, and of those 87, 50 use Intel processors. There are a total of 67 HP computers with Intel processors. If you walk into a random computer lab the department manages and sit at a random computer system, what is the probablility that it is an AMD powered HP system?
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-08 18:27
0.23
Name:
Xeno2005-04-03 4:24
That's a trick question. They wouldn't buy Dell's AND Hp's.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-03 14:57
.5
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-03 14:58
.5
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-18 2:11
>>9
>"If you walk into a random computer lab..."
trick question. the number of computer labs and the distribution of computers within them must be known.
for instance, assume that there are only 2 computer labs. maybe they put all 46 AMD HPs in one, and the rest in the other. therefore the probability is .5. if they split the 'rest' computer lab into two computer labs, then you'd only have a .333 probability, etc.
Name:
York2005-04-19 7:29 (sage)
Here's the bestest brain-teaser:
Do all the non-trivial zeroes of the function ζ(s) have real part =1/2?
You're gonna have to define ζ for me. I aint never heard of it outside of Greek class.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-21 16:16
assume: all the non-trivial zeroes of the function ζ(s) have real part =1/2.
Q.E.D!
Name:
hakusan2005-04-22 3:05
>>9 >>14
dell doesnt use AMD processors in their computers.
>from dell support page(had to look to verify :P )
"At the date of publication (August 28, 2001), all Dell systems ship with Intel® processors. At this time, Dell does not manufacture any systems with AMD Athlon processors."
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-03 23:20
x²-x² = (x+x)(x-x) = x(x-x)
2x = x
2 = 1
:O
i broke teh world
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-05 10:32 (sage)
>>20
You divided by zero when you factored out (x - x), fool.
BITCH doesn't know how to factor. the argument is a real x. For all real x, x-x=0. that's the cloaked 'fallacy' in the proof. if you multiply (x+x)(x-x), you get x²-x²+x²-x², which simplifies to x²-x² (or zero if you're paying attention). the equality to x(x-x) is derived from factoring x out of the original expression. since, for all real x, x-x is zero, one cannot divide by zero to get that 2x=x in the general case; the only legitimate real x to satisfy this equation is zero. and in that case, x-x is indeed -x². not that it matters cos you can't figure out factoring.