New spoilers for Monday 18th January 2010
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:49 pm
Hoping to see even lower necklines today, don't let us down Oliver.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?Mark Kudlowski wrote:3rd numbers:
((5 x 7) + 3) x (9 + (4 x 2)) = 38 x 17 = 646
(I hope Rachel's solution wasn't the same - I vaguely heard it on in the bachground as I was typing.)
Michael Wallace wrote:cool, new spoilers
CARINATE is fine.James Robinson wrote:1st Numbers Alternative:
25 x 10 = 250, 6 x 4 = 24, 250 + 24 + 5 = 279
2nd Numbers Alternative:
9 x 5 = 45, 45 - 2 = 43, 7 + 4 = 11, 43 x 11 = 473, 473 - 1 = 472
Wasn't CARINATE also there in round 13, or does it have to be CARINATED?
That's what I had, too. lolSue Sanders wrote:I guess FECKERS isn't in the dictionary yet!
Why would you assume that? If I say I used the same method and was within the time, do you assume that I'm lying?Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm assuming this was outside the 30 seconds?Mark Kudlowski wrote:3rd numbers:
((5 x 7) + 3) x (9 + (4 x 2)) = 38 x 17 = 646
(I hope Rachel's solution wasn't the same - I vaguely heard it on in the bachground as I was typing.)
It was a rather convoluted method. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is such an impressive solution in the 30 seconds. I understand the difference of two squares but to spot this and work the method out, then actually try and find the numbers that work in the time is pretty impressive. If you can't find 38x17 and only find 37x17, you are 17 out and 0 points so it's a bit of a dangerous method.Clive Brooker wrote: Why would you assume that? If I say I used the same method and was within the time, do you assume that I'm lying?
If you spot that the target is 2 x (18² - 1), then using the difference of two squares you can quickly be looking for either 38 x 17 or 34 x 19. No idea how Mike approached it of course.
The natural approach is to start with 9x7x5x2=630. With 3 and 4 to play you might see quickly that (9x7x2 + 3)x5 is one away. With that in the bank you might have a punt at factorising. But, like Kirk, I'd be mightily impressed with someone who saw that the original approach wasn't going to work and solved it in 30 seconds. I certainly didn't.Kirk Bevins wrote:It was a rather convoluted method. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is such an impressive solution in the 30 seconds. I understand the difference of two squares but to spot this and work the method out, then actually try and find the numbers that work in the time is pretty impressive. If you can't find 38x17 and only find 37x17, you are 17 out and 0 points so it's a bit of a dangerous method.Clive Brooker wrote: Why would you assume that? If I say I used the same method and was within the time, do you assume that I'm lying?
If you spot that the target is 2 x (18² - 1), then using the difference of two squares you can quickly be looking for either 38 x 17 or 34 x 19. No idea how Mike approached it of course.
<3Ben Hunter wrote:Michael Wallace wrote:cool, new spoilers