Kinos with this aesthetic?

14

9 small squares
4 4x4 corner squares
1 large outer aquare

10, easy
its number of squares + 1

its 11.25 you stupid niggers

I thought it was 10 because 5 is the number of empty spaces if you count empty space outside of the square

Reminder iq is nothing but your ability to recognize patterns

4x = 5
x = 5/4
9x = 9 * 5/4= 45/4

That is, if we're counting squares. These facebook-tier problems are useless because we don't know what the 5 is referring to

This. Anyone who said 10 or 14 is a smooth brain.

4 equals 5
1 equals 5/4
5/4 times 4/9
45/36 times 16/36
is ... hold on
450 + 240 + 30
is 720/36

It's 20. Man this was hard.

13.420

>because we don't know what the 5 is referring to
It's so easy, you fucking brainlet.

The top one is five.
4 small inner squares plus the perimeter square.

1 5 14 30
n^2+(n-1)^2+...+1

1488

Why is there even a single correct answer to bullshit like this? Why is more correct than ?

I mean if there were more examples such that you could say there's a pattern with rules sure, but there isn't.

Thats the joke, everything here is wrong.
2 numbers dont create a predictable pattern.

math is literally useless

Please do the gene pool a favour and end yourself.

(I)diot (Q)uestions

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

Because in the second case, 1 is an arbitrary "magic number", whereas in the first case it is entirely self-referential.
You are right, you can't have a pattern with one data point, but the first case is more elegant.

Please tell me how this is useful

Oh ok.

Not really much of a joke considering so many share it and sincerely try to answer it and say others are wrong.

blue's clues

Attached: burns-blues-clues-03.jpg (2000x1333, 1.35M)

are ya fukken daft?

It's keeping people entertained, so it's more youseful than you faggot.

as someone with a phd in polynomial division, the answer is 1.

the implicit mapping f is the real-valued function on the set of all square grids S such that f(s)=1 for all s in S

How do we know that is for sure the case? Why don't the sides equal 5? Or maybe the edges?
It's because it's not an actual problem but a multi-choice trick question.

This is literally a "count the number of squares" puzzle and anyone who says anything other than 14 is a fucking smoothbrained doublenigger.

I have a PhD in integer division and the answer is 5

the answer is fuck jannies

It's 15 because the image itself is a square too.

Morons

Attached: 5.png (475x541, 562K)

The point is to show how humans prefer to use all of their mental energy on trivial things that are fundamentaly useless.

How fucked is math really? If it's a science, shouldn't we all have the same outcome? This thread is a goddamn warzone.

Unironically more correct and probable than all other answers in the thread

Attached: cards.jpg (2980x2528, 774.17K)

+One isn't any more magical a rule than counting the squares. You can't prove one answer is more right than the other you can only say that one answer feels smarter/"more elegant" than the other and you don't have an original explanation of why that is either.

So I guess a movie equivalent is the Dark Knight compared to any capeshit. People feel it's smarter than another spiderman remake but it really can't be said why other than it feels smarter.

You can't prove a pattern with only one start value. It's just mongs guessing in here

because its not math

We're having differing answers because there are autists that are overthinking the problem and coming up with retarded equations like

45/4

this, all we know is they are inquiring about the ratio.

>1 is an arbitrary "magic number"
It's literally the outer perimeter square.

This is a datamining thread you stupid fags.

what the fuck are you doing...

Attached: 1599314338530.jpg (970x880, 114.13K)

This is a stupid question because we don't know what the 5 is representing. It could be representing the total perimeter of the outside of the square, the area's of each square, how many squares are in the square, or anything else. The entire thing is fucking pointless.

Attached: 1600279378604.jpg (475x541, 81.89K)

Another retarded trick question. We can't know 7 and Queen's values since they're unrelated to the other cards

>autists arguing about unsolvable meme problem
real useful data

math isn't a science, it is a rational rather than empirical, therefore superior to science.

safe to assume queen is worth 1 less than king lmao

It's literally grade-school math

it's a ratio

what does the x even represent in that figure?
ratio of what?

Explain why that is using math. It's literally a faulty system of equations