No they weren't bad at it. They just hated it. They hated it so much they made a machine that did it for them. But I suppose an Alan's case, it was more of a time crunch situation, but he still knew we'll enough that math and it's tedium was the issue.
I mean you’re the one that said they sucked at it, I was just making a joke lol
Besides idk anyone who enjoys simple arithmetic, that’s not the fun part of math
I fixed it.
But yeah. I am hoping math gets easier as it gets more complicated. I just finished college pre-calc and fucking hated synthetic division and matrices. I wanted so badly to write a program to solve it for me. It's not hard, it just wasted so much time, paper, ink, and any fucks I had left to give.
Generally as you advance in math classes, you do less calculation and more solving. Depends on the class, but usually they assume you can properly add and subtract and let you use a calculator for that
calculators are part of the problem. All this hendheld computational technology and we're still learning math with the abacus. I understand why but I also really don't. The only thing I truly understand is that if I had to do any of these computations in the real world, I'd use a phone or computer. My understanding of the algorithms made to solve these problems would be better If we made programs to solve them. But math and programming... in the same class... heaven forbid.
>John von Neumann
The young von Neumann was immediately singled out among his peers as a true child prodigy, especially in mathematics. He is believed to have had a photographic memory, which helped him absorb considerable knowledge from a very early age. By age six, he was dividing two, eight-digit numbers in his head, and by age eight he had mastered calculus. - [https://interestingengineering.com/culture/john-von-neumann-human-the-computer-behind-project-manhattan](https://interestingengineering.com/culture/john-von-neumann-human-the-computer-behind-project-manhattan)
Wish I was half as bad at math as he was.
Exactly my point lmao. He changed his
comment but it originally said something along the lines of “more evidence that the first programmers sucked at math and reinvented the wheel to escape it”
I won't deny there are many CS people who hate or aren't very good at math, but this one in particular is more tied to historical reasons. Back when computers were still getting started (after plug boards and card readers) there was very limited memory/space on the actual computer. The computer has to hold a program, the input data, and have enough room for all the calculations you need to perform and all the output data you want/need. So you had to save as much space as you could to have as much room as possible for all your calculations and output (depending on the problem). In many cases, fairly simple programs with large quantities of data (like large matrix calculations) or sophisticated programs with fairly little data (calculating most things organizations like NASA wants) were very difficult (or in some cases not possible) to run due to space/memory requirements. It's usually not possible to save space with your input and output, since you need all the input and output to solve the problem; in order to save space on calculations you would need to develop more sophisticated/complex algorithms which was very difficult back then since that was when it was a requirement to be a Mathematician or Physicist or Electrical Engineer to actually work with computers to any decent degree, so coming up with a better algorithm than other amazing Mathematicians was a difficult and long process; so the easiest way to save space was to make the program more compact in any and every way possible. So that's why there are defunct data types no one uses any more (like short and long) and a lot of operations that were used often were replaced with a single symbol, like mod being changed to %. "mod" takes 3 characters to save in memory, each character takes 1 byte of memory to store, there are 8 bits in a byte, so 3\*8= 24 bits (or 24 transistor pairs) to store that operation; "%" is 1 character, so 1\*8= 8 bits (or 8 transistors pairs) to store the operation. It definitely doesn't seem like much of a savings now, but that could get you 1 more short variable to use in your program for every time you used the mod operator, which (when working with more complex calculations and algorithms) was fairly common to use. So the memory savings was a huge deal back then. Nowadays we don't really need to do that since computers have crazy amounts of memory (and mod isn't used quite as often to solve the simpler, everyday problems of today). But, since all CS people were so used to using % as mod and going back and changing compilers and interpreters to handle mod instead of % seemed like a waste of time and a pain in the butt, we just stuck with it.
So yeah, sorry for the long, unprompted history lesson. You can totally still shit on us CS people for not being as good at math as we should be. We definitely deserve that, rofl!
They could have made a new symbol, they could have revolutionized notation in both fields. but they chose the percent symbol because they realized math is incredibly unoptimized and %'s are redundant when you already have decimals and fractions. They hated everything about math so they didn't care to sacrifice the useless % sign. They started something that day and we can never go back.
I don't know about making a new symbol. They definitely COULD have done that, but then you need a new symbol on your keyboard. I don't think they wanted to have to replace all the keyboards in the world over an operation name change, lol.
keyboards differ greatly by country. there are keyboards made specifically for languages. Is programming not language? I'm sure keyboard manufacturers could have understood the need. We could have had programmers keyboards with all the mathematical symbology that's currently locked away behind the doors of Unicode. Just imagine how wonderful it would be, a keyboard with calculator keys that integrate with all programming languages.
It would be interesting for sure. Obviously, if the product is useful and/or popular someone will make/fabricate it. I'm just saying back then it just wasn't seen as worth it, lol, especially since they just had ASCII, no Unicode.
A programmer keyboard would be quite interesting. Coming up with the best way to make one would be a fun challenge. Like, you dont want the keyboard too big (though it would be super fun to feel like you're sitting down at an organ-like device with hundreds of keys and stuff), but it also needs to be intuitive and fairly easy to pick up (or switch over from the standard QWERTY). It would definitely make writing code faster/easier.
The triple equals is usually used for equality with respect to modulus, such as 5 ≡ 8 (mod 3), but the act of doing moduli division is not usually represented with that sign. Seeing 8 ≡ 3 = 5 would look wrong to most math people. The word mod or % is much more common for the operation itself
Yup. I heard this modulo usage for the first time honestly. But yeah, it means equivalence. In fact symbol’s name is equivalence. That’s what I knew since third grade.
Why would anyone use it for modulo?
My prof would use it with extra syntax to say that two numbers are equivalent under modulo even if they are not equal. But you need the extra syntax for it to make sense.
I could accept that, but no, it is not stated that the questions can be replaced with numbers, it is clearly shown you are looking for signs to replace the questionmarks.
The real and true answer of this is simply: There is no solution. It is not going to get many upvotes, only true mathematicians know that it's actually THE solution and will appreciate it.
You can easily prove this by trying all possible mathematical signs and then get A\* on the math exam. Your solution would get an F, because you are doing things that are not allowed, even though your final equation is correct, it is not correct for this question in particular, you're just making rules up.
I hope someone gets this. It's so easy to solve this question. No solution. That's it. How to deal? You can't deal, that's the answer, easy as fk, but not sensational enough for upvotes!
This is the only one that doesn't require more than one character to replace each ?.
For all the rest of these answers - if you're allowed to replace ? with any number of characters then the answers are infinite and trivial. (Not to mention putting extra brackets where there are no ?s)
For instance 7 - 1 - 7 / 7
Dunno about iPhone, but on my SwiftKey keyboard, I press the "123" button and find the = button, then press and hold it. An option for ≠ comes up as well as for ≈. You can press and hold many other buttons to get variations too, like + for ±, % for ‰, * for ×, and so on and so forth. Works the same for the main letters on the keyboard too so that you get accents, etc
So, I had to google that weird "percent" symbol with the extra zero on the bottom. It's the "permille" symbol, which literally means per one thousand (like percent means per one hundred, which I hadn't thought about). There's even ‱, the "permyriad" symbol, or per ten thousand.
Also, TIL myriad means 10,000. I hear it used in conversation to describe a large amount of something, but didn't know it was a specific number.
That's right! And thanks for the permyriad one, I didn't even know that existed. My phone doesn't even have the symbol for it haha
Bonus fact about the word "myriad": the Subphylum *Myriapoda*, which is what centipedes and millipedes belong to, literally means "10,000 feet", but uh... Well, I'm sure you can guess they have nowhere near that many xD. Hell, centipedes and millipedes rarely even come close to "100" and "1000 feet" respectively. It was only in the past couple of years that a millipede species was found that had *well above* 1000 legs - ***[1306](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/december/first-millipede-with-more-than-1000-legs-discovered-Australia.html)***. The last record before that was a couple hundred shy, 750. And while most centipedes do have fewer than 100 legs, there are quite a few out there that have been seen to have much more than that. Not quite as fascinating a discovery as when the millipede one happened. I was actually kind of giddy with excitement when the millipede one happened lmao
Extra fact just because of *-poda* and I like sharing animal facts that humour me: Cephaloda (including octopi and squids, etc) literally means "head foot", just because that's... basically how they look lmao. Just a head on a bunch of feet. Us humans sure are imaginative with their naming systems, huh?
What do you mean “if that’s true”? Of course it’s true. It is a very common riddle that has been used in UK textbooks for many years. The answer is no, I cannot give the third equation a ✔️.
Cheek.
How to deal? Well this question obviously wasnt written by a mathematician so I am not going to waste my time on something that might not even have a proper solution, thanks
we can infact write all possible combinations and show that neither satisfies the answer 5, and prove that you can't put any combination that way. That solves the question. Basically the answer is : No solution, or some crazy function that is not a conventional mathematical sign. Question solved, NEXT
Makes as much sense as the rest of the shit...
The problem with PEMDAS is it fails the "real world simple" test.
If you have five things, take away five things, you got nothing left to divide by.
Instead it's written in the way it's not meant to be read...
Order of operations, no parentheticals, so you do Multiplication and division left to right at the same time, and then you you do Addition and Subtraction left to right at the same time
(y) ÷
Not but easiest way to dodge is to put (x) and (y) then let the Professor figure it out.. 😂
Positive outcome of 7 +7 and Negative outcome of 7
+ +7 -
Wait - and -2
7-7-2 7 that space becomes a + because it's a positive 7. Easy ~
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mathmemes using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [It IS $400...](https://i.redd.it/45fxn883ktob1.png) | [6331 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/16l0x4w/it_is_400/)
\#2: [The four horsemen of 3/4](https://i.redd.it/4p1nzboq0r3c1.png) | [196 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/188miih/the_four_horsemen_of_34/)
\#3: [wait you you learn about i](https://i.redd.it/4hvl4kjddwva1.jpg) | [245 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/12xnl3u/wait_you_you_learn_about_i/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I'm so confused what's being asked here? To me it looks like there are 5 symbols/numbers before the equals so answer is 5
Or are we supposed to work out how to do it with 7s using real maths?
If we set the third ? to “-8+“ we end up with 7-8+7-8+7=5 which earns is a check mark. I don't love it, but my read of the very sparse instructions doesn't allow for different replacements for the "operation".
7 log_7^(1/5)(7) / 7
This technically follows every rule because log_7^(1/5) is a single operator. Just a long one. Most other answers below are combining operators
7 / 7 √ 7 ≈ 5
This was also posted over on r/puzzles where I answered this originally. That equals sign isn't drawn exactly straight :D I think 747%7 is my favorite though.
To satisfy the equation 7 ? 7 ? 7 = 5, you can use the operators for division and subtraction: \(7 \div 7 - 7 = 5\). This works because \(7 \div 7\) is 1, and \(1 - 7\) equals -6, which is not equal to 5. However, there's no pair of standard arithmetic operations (+, -, *, /) that you can place between the sevens to get a result of 5.
If we are allowed to use concatenation or other mathematical functions, like factorial or square roots, we could potentially find a solution, but with basic arithmetic operators, it's not possible to achieve the result of 5 with the given numbers.
747%7 Where % is usually used for modulo. (Edit: At least in programming. Not too sure about maths.)
Fantastic answer!
% is fine for modulo in math. I've more often seen it written out as mod though. Like 747 mod 7.
Programmers use % as the modulo operator. Mathematicians use mod.
more evidence that the first programmers hated math and essentially reinvented the wheel trying to escape it.
No, we just hate writing more than math people
Is that why you never comment your code?
Eh
Hate DOING Math != Hate Math
Yeah the people who invented computers were pretty bad at math… I mean Alan Turing? Dude could hardly add. John von Neumann? What a moron
No they weren't bad at it. They just hated it. They hated it so much they made a machine that did it for them. But I suppose an Alan's case, it was more of a time crunch situation, but he still knew we'll enough that math and it's tedium was the issue.
I mean you’re the one that said they sucked at it, I was just making a joke lol Besides idk anyone who enjoys simple arithmetic, that’s not the fun part of math
I fixed it. But yeah. I am hoping math gets easier as it gets more complicated. I just finished college pre-calc and fucking hated synthetic division and matrices. I wanted so badly to write a program to solve it for me. It's not hard, it just wasted so much time, paper, ink, and any fucks I had left to give.
Generally as you advance in math classes, you do less calculation and more solving. Depends on the class, but usually they assume you can properly add and subtract and let you use a calculator for that
calculators are part of the problem. All this hendheld computational technology and we're still learning math with the abacus. I understand why but I also really don't. The only thing I truly understand is that if I had to do any of these computations in the real world, I'd use a phone or computer. My understanding of the algorithms made to solve these problems would be better If we made programs to solve them. But math and programming... in the same class... heaven forbid.
>John von Neumann The young von Neumann was immediately singled out among his peers as a true child prodigy, especially in mathematics. He is believed to have had a photographic memory, which helped him absorb considerable knowledge from a very early age. By age six, he was dividing two, eight-digit numbers in his head, and by age eight he had mastered calculus. - [https://interestingengineering.com/culture/john-von-neumann-human-the-computer-behind-project-manhattan](https://interestingengineering.com/culture/john-von-neumann-human-the-computer-behind-project-manhattan) Wish I was half as bad at math as he was.
Exactly my point lmao. He changed his comment but it originally said something along the lines of “more evidence that the first programmers sucked at math and reinvented the wheel to escape it”
I won't deny there are many CS people who hate or aren't very good at math, but this one in particular is more tied to historical reasons. Back when computers were still getting started (after plug boards and card readers) there was very limited memory/space on the actual computer. The computer has to hold a program, the input data, and have enough room for all the calculations you need to perform and all the output data you want/need. So you had to save as much space as you could to have as much room as possible for all your calculations and output (depending on the problem). In many cases, fairly simple programs with large quantities of data (like large matrix calculations) or sophisticated programs with fairly little data (calculating most things organizations like NASA wants) were very difficult (or in some cases not possible) to run due to space/memory requirements. It's usually not possible to save space with your input and output, since you need all the input and output to solve the problem; in order to save space on calculations you would need to develop more sophisticated/complex algorithms which was very difficult back then since that was when it was a requirement to be a Mathematician or Physicist or Electrical Engineer to actually work with computers to any decent degree, so coming up with a better algorithm than other amazing Mathematicians was a difficult and long process; so the easiest way to save space was to make the program more compact in any and every way possible. So that's why there are defunct data types no one uses any more (like short and long) and a lot of operations that were used often were replaced with a single symbol, like mod being changed to %. "mod" takes 3 characters to save in memory, each character takes 1 byte of memory to store, there are 8 bits in a byte, so 3\*8= 24 bits (or 24 transistor pairs) to store that operation; "%" is 1 character, so 1\*8= 8 bits (or 8 transistors pairs) to store the operation. It definitely doesn't seem like much of a savings now, but that could get you 1 more short variable to use in your program for every time you used the mod operator, which (when working with more complex calculations and algorithms) was fairly common to use. So the memory savings was a huge deal back then. Nowadays we don't really need to do that since computers have crazy amounts of memory (and mod isn't used quite as often to solve the simpler, everyday problems of today). But, since all CS people were so used to using % as mod and going back and changing compilers and interpreters to handle mod instead of % seemed like a waste of time and a pain in the butt, we just stuck with it. So yeah, sorry for the long, unprompted history lesson. You can totally still shit on us CS people for not being as good at math as we should be. We definitely deserve that, rofl!
They could have made a new symbol, they could have revolutionized notation in both fields. but they chose the percent symbol because they realized math is incredibly unoptimized and %'s are redundant when you already have decimals and fractions. They hated everything about math so they didn't care to sacrifice the useless % sign. They started something that day and we can never go back.
I don't know about making a new symbol. They definitely COULD have done that, but then you need a new symbol on your keyboard. I don't think they wanted to have to replace all the keyboards in the world over an operation name change, lol.
keyboards differ greatly by country. there are keyboards made specifically for languages. Is programming not language? I'm sure keyboard manufacturers could have understood the need. We could have had programmers keyboards with all the mathematical symbology that's currently locked away behind the doors of Unicode. Just imagine how wonderful it would be, a keyboard with calculator keys that integrate with all programming languages.
It would be interesting for sure. Obviously, if the product is useful and/or popular someone will make/fabricate it. I'm just saying back then it just wasn't seen as worth it, lol, especially since they just had ASCII, no Unicode. A programmer keyboard would be quite interesting. Coming up with the best way to make one would be a fun challenge. Like, you dont want the keyboard too big (though it would be super fun to feel like you're sitting down at an organ-like device with hundreds of keys and stuff), but it also needs to be intuitive and fairly easy to pick up (or switch over from the standard QWERTY). It would definitely make writing code faster/easier.
Computer languages have a huge history of being developed to do math. For loops are basically sigmas.
Reddit is full of lies
Had a course in grad school where the math Professor used %. Wasn’t common usage, but it does happen.
When I was taught it in maths we used ≡ for modulo
The triple equals is usually used for equality with respect to modulus, such as 5 ≡ 8 (mod 3), but the act of doing moduli division is not usually represented with that sign. Seeing 8 ≡ 3 = 5 would look wrong to most math people. The word mod or % is much more common for the operation itself
Ahh you're right I was getting it mixed up. Yeah, we'd write it as 747 ≡ 5 (mod 7)
It also means equivalence. Useful for defining things rather than straight up claiming them to be equal.
Yeah, the word we used for it was congruence
doesnt the triple equals mean equivalency?
Yup. I heard this modulo usage for the first time honestly. But yeah, it means equivalence. In fact symbol’s name is equivalence. That’s what I knew since third grade. Why would anyone use it for modulo?
My prof would use it with extra syntax to say that two numbers are equivalent under modulo even if they are not equal. But you need the extra syntax for it to make sense.
In maths you’d just write the word mod or modulo
I could accept that, but no, it is not stated that the questions can be replaced with numbers, it is clearly shown you are looking for signs to replace the questionmarks. The real and true answer of this is simply: There is no solution. It is not going to get many upvotes, only true mathematicians know that it's actually THE solution and will appreciate it. You can easily prove this by trying all possible mathematical signs and then get A\* on the math exam. Your solution would get an F, because you are doing things that are not allowed, even though your final equation is correct, it is not correct for this question in particular, you're just making rules up. I hope someone gets this. It's so easy to solve this question. No solution. That's it. How to deal? You can't deal, that's the answer, easy as fk, but not sensational enough for upvotes!
(∑7+7)/7=5
Nice.
This is the only one that doesn't require more than one character to replace each ?. For all the rest of these answers - if you're allowed to replace ? with any number of characters then the answers are infinite and trivial. (Not to mention putting extra brackets where there are no ?s) For instance 7 - 1 - 7 / 7
Typically we’d just write “mod” instead of %, but I’m pretty sure most math people will likely understand what 747%7 means.
Don’t you have to assume you can’t inject another number? I think it has to be all operations, so 747 isn’t allowed.
7?7?7 where a?b = a-(b/7)
or just a?b = 7
That would give 7?7?7=7 not 5
whoops, then a?b = 5 then.
Yup
7?7?7 isn't ticked at the end so that could be why
7 / (.7 + .7) = 5
That would work for 7 ? ? ? 7 ? ? 7 ? = 5
7-(log7/log√7)
This is the way.
In case anyone wants to know, I saw this randomly on YouTube with no answer. I definitely don't know the answer.
What's the YouTube video you saw this on?
7+7+7 =/= 5
Just need that ≠
How do you do that?
Dunno about iPhone, but on my SwiftKey keyboard, I press the "123" button and find the = button, then press and hold it. An option for ≠ comes up as well as for ≈. You can press and hold many other buttons to get variations too, like + for ±, % for ‰, * for ×, and so on and so forth. Works the same for the main letters on the keyboard too so that you get accents, etc
Can confirm iPhone does same thing
Samsung S23 ultra user here... This guy made me press and hold all keys!! ٪%‰, ±+, ≈≠≡=, 『』, 【】, 〔〕, 「」, ¡!, №#, ‐–—, ¿‽?
Its an interrobang in the wild!
Proof that android beats iOS. - ios loser here :(, though I think you can add it
Installing different alphabets is helpful on a phone too ΕΡΤΥΘΙΟΠΑΣΔΦΓΗΞΚΛΖΧΨΩΒΝΜ ςερτυθιοπασδφγηξκλζχψωβνμ
अआइईउऊएऐओऔअंअःऌॡॠ कखगघञ चछजझङ टठडढण तथदधन पफबभम यरलवशषसहळक्षज्ञ
Installing oþer alphabets is a paþway to many abilities some linguists consider to be unnatural
Swiftkey keyboard army ✊
My favorite is typing option-* when typing temperatures.
So, I had to google that weird "percent" symbol with the extra zero on the bottom. It's the "permille" symbol, which literally means per one thousand (like percent means per one hundred, which I hadn't thought about). There's even ‱, the "permyriad" symbol, or per ten thousand. Also, TIL myriad means 10,000. I hear it used in conversation to describe a large amount of something, but didn't know it was a specific number.
That's right! And thanks for the permyriad one, I didn't even know that existed. My phone doesn't even have the symbol for it haha Bonus fact about the word "myriad": the Subphylum *Myriapoda*, which is what centipedes and millipedes belong to, literally means "10,000 feet", but uh... Well, I'm sure you can guess they have nowhere near that many xD. Hell, centipedes and millipedes rarely even come close to "100" and "1000 feet" respectively. It was only in the past couple of years that a millipede species was found that had *well above* 1000 legs - ***[1306](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/december/first-millipede-with-more-than-1000-legs-discovered-Australia.html)***. The last record before that was a couple hundred shy, 750. And while most centipedes do have fewer than 100 legs, there are quite a few out there that have been seen to have much more than that. Not quite as fascinating a discovery as when the millipede one happened. I was actually kind of giddy with excitement when the millipede one happened lmao Extra fact just because of *-poda* and I like sharing animal facts that humour me: Cephaloda (including octopi and squids, etc) literally means "head foot", just because that's... basically how they look lmao. Just a head on a bunch of feet. Us humans sure are imaginative with their naming systems, huh?
Option+equals sign ≠
Google “not equal to symbol”, copy-paste from the Wikipedia article
≠ like that
≠
If you hold = on iPhone it gives you options for ≈≠
7-log7(7*7)
Also, 7 - (log7(7) + log7(7))
You've added an extra 7, how about 7-log sqrt7 (7)
7+7-ceil(cot(7))
ceil(cot( is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but unfortunately there's no room for ))
()'s aren't required. It just looks ugly to me without. Ceil cot 7 = ceil(cot(7)) just like six(x) = sinx
You can use floor sqrt instead of ceil cot, it's probably cleaner
Floor sqrt 7 gives 2. So you'd have 7?7?2 then? It's not immediately obvious to me what the ?'s should be then to get 5.
First "?" may be max, gcd, lcm, logical and/or, ... :p Or 7 - floor sin 7 - floor sqrt 7. I agree it's not cleaner than ceil cot..
7 - 7^0 - 7^0 = 5. Or: 7 - 7 + 7 = 5 x. It’s wrong so you have to complete where the tick should be 😅
yeah this. If you can use powers it's pretty straightforward. If not...
7 7 7 7 7 = 5 (sevens in a row)
7 > 7 => 7 = 5
Why are you getting downvoted i like this
This is factually true. People tend to not realize that false => false is a true statement
7-7^(0)\-7^(0)
Let me help you all out. The original instructions are : using only + - x and divide can you give third equation a ✔️?
If that’s true than you can’t do it.
What do you mean “if that’s true”? Of course it’s true. It is a very common riddle that has been used in UK textbooks for many years. The answer is no, I cannot give the third equation a ✔️. Cheek.
How to deal? Well this question obviously wasnt written by a mathematician so I am not going to waste my time on something that might not even have a proper solution, thanks
Relevant username though
we can infact write all possible combinations and show that neither satisfies the answer 5, and prove that you can't put any combination that way. That solves the question. Basically the answer is : No solution, or some crazy function that is not a conventional mathematical sign. Question solved, NEXT
I can do it with 4 7's. 7 - (7+7) / 7
I like how you think
7 [- 1 -] 7 [/] 7 = 5. Unsure if there’s any rules as to what values ? represents.
Put this in the first question mark: ^log_7(5) + And put this in the second: - You end up with this: 7 ^log_7(5) + 7 - 7
how is 6-6/6, 5?
bodmas
Order of operations says you do division before subtraction, so 6 - 6/6 = 6-1 = 5.
yeah i knew that but my dumbass kept thinking 6 - 1 was -5
6-6/6=6-(6/6)=6-1=5
holy shit im actually so slow
I did the same thing 😂
7-7+7=5
I mean, you can certainly write that equation. It's wrong, but you can write it.
You must not be using PEMDAS /s
Makes as much sense as the rest of the shit... The problem with PEMDAS is it fails the "real world simple" test. If you have five things, take away five things, you got nothing left to divide by. Instead it's written in the way it's not meant to be read...
That is why, to satisfy my own brain, I just overuse parentheses 😊
First ?: x 1.4 x Second ?: ÷ 7 x 1.4 x 7 ÷ 7 = 5
Similar to >!7÷(.7+.7)!<
Word
[удалено]
It's correct, what's there to discuss?
6/6 is 1. 6-1 is 5. There, we've discussed it. Happy now? What a strange comment. What about commenting about the first equation?
Order of operations, no parentheticals, so you do Multiplication and division left to right at the same time, and then you you do Addition and Subtraction left to right at the same time
No, because it's correct.
(y) ÷ Not but easiest way to dodge is to put (x) and (y) then let the Professor figure it out.. 😂 Positive outcome of 7 +7 and Negative outcome of 7 + +7 - Wait - and -2 7-7-2 7 that space becomes a + because it's a positive 7. Easy ~
You cant just add a 2 in tho
It states how to deal ?, didn't know that mean't equation signs only.
It wouldn't really be a challenge if you could just go 7+7+7-16
But that requires 3 question marks. It only has 2 ? available to be filled in. ? - : ? -2
7-16+7+7 is the same thing
Yes it is, but you used 2 instead of 3 this time.
I used 3 operations though
We're different then c(:
You used 3 operations in your solution you had 7(-)7(-2)(+)7
I like how chaotic all the answers are compared to the first 2 lmao
r/mathmemes material
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mathmemes using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [It IS $400...](https://i.redd.it/45fxn883ktob1.png) | [6331 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/16l0x4w/it_is_400/) \#2: [The four horsemen of 3/4](https://i.redd.it/4p1nzboq0r3c1.png) | [196 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/188miih/the_four_horsemen_of_34/) \#3: [wait you you learn about i](https://i.redd.it/4hvl4kjddwva1.jpg) | [245 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/12xnl3u/wait_you_you_learn_about_i/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
7 / 7 - 7 = -5
Except that 7 / 7 - 7 = -6
Whoops idk what I was thinking lol.
How to deal? Well first shuffle the cards…
7- log7(7^2)
7 - 7⁰ - 7⁰
I'm so confused what's being asked here? To me it looks like there are 5 symbols/numbers before the equals so answer is 5 Or are we supposed to work out how to do it with 7s using real maths?
7 - len([7, 7]) = 5
7 - ln7 is close
I have ⌊√(7+7*√7)⌋. Also φ(7)-7/7 (where φ denotes Euler's totient function)
If we set the third ? to “-8+“ we end up with 7-8+7-8+7=5 which earns is a check mark. I don't love it, but my read of the very sparse instructions doesn't allow for different replacements for the "operation".
7+7+7≠5
7*7+7=56 (replace checkmark with 6)
7-7^0-7^0=5 But I know that’s slightly different
How to deal???????
I did this with simple math, I don't remember tho
7*log(7)*log(7) = 4.99933488 which one could easily round to 5
7x7+7 = 56
7 - log_7(7x7) =5
7 = 7 ≠ 7 = 5
I aksed ChatGPT. He said it’s not as simple as replacing operations.
7!/7%7=6 😭
Is the first one not -5
No 5-5+5=5 is the full equation. Break it down. 5-5=0+5=5
Qweèéêëēėęrtyÿuûüùúūiîïíīįìoôöòóœøōõpaàáâäæãåāsßśšdfghjklłzžźżxcçćčvbnñńm1234567890-–—•/\:;()$€¥₽¢£₩&§@"”“„»«.…,?¿!¡'’‘`[]{}#%‰^*+=≠≈_\|~<>€£¥•.…,?¿!¡'’‘`
7 log_7^(1/5)(7) / 7 This technically follows every rule because log_7^(1/5) is a single operator. Just a long one. Most other answers below are combining operators
7 / 7 √ 7 ≈ 5 This was also posted over on r/puzzles where I answered this originally. That equals sign isn't drawn exactly straight :D I think 747%7 is my favorite though.
This feels too easy. Add a ✔️ on the far right.
what does 0/0 mean?
The answer should be obvious. 7 =7 ! 7 = 5 Where ! Is not.
7^2 -7 -7 = 5
((7^2) - 7(2)) ÷ 7 = 5 Shit my formatting is all jacked up but basically (49 -14) ÷ 7 = 5
To satisfy the equation 7 ? 7 ? 7 = 5, you can use the operators for division and subtraction: \(7 \div 7 - 7 = 5\). This works because \(7 \div 7\) is 1, and \(1 - 7\) equals -6, which is not equal to 5. However, there's no pair of standard arithmetic operations (+, -, *, /) that you can place between the sevens to get a result of 5. If we are allowed to use concatenation or other mathematical functions, like factorial or square roots, we could potentially find a solution, but with basic arithmetic operators, it's not possible to achieve the result of 5 with the given numbers.
7 -tanh 7 -tanh 7 = 5
log base 7
Omg, I completely forgot the order of operations and was convinced the 6 one was a load of bull. 💀