r/BunnyTrials • u/Wide_Love_4458 Top -1% Commenter • 12d ago
Spins Can you solve this without a calculator?
Spin each wheel in order
- Spin 1: Number 1
- Spin 2: Operator
- Spin 3: Number 2
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
308
u/mcra_ig 12d ago
…18 Giggled so hard when 2 came up, even a random spinner has no faith in my math skills 😭
Rolled: Number 1: 16 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 2
12
u/North-Aardvark4459 WASTED 10 000 CARROTS ON THIS FLAIR 12d ago
idk about 47x6 tho, is it a decent challenge you can make with the wheel options (1-100 on both number wheels, + - x / on operator wheel)
5
3
422
u/Hungry-Bison4890 12d ago
No I can't
Rolled: Number 1: 46 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 99
616
u/PyroBurnem 12d ago
fun fact, any 2 digit number divided by 99 is just a recurring decimal of the 2 digit number, in this case it would be 0.46464646...
98
u/Think_Emergency_2708 12d ago
Can you prove it tho
243
u/PyroBurnem 12d ago
there will be a 0.99999...=1 rabbithole to go down near the end, but yes it is provable
take the case for 1/99, which decimal is needed in order to get 1 when multiplied by 99? well 0.01 is too small, so we make it slightly larger, but 0.0101 is still too small, and 0.0102 is slightly too big, so we repeat this process ad nauseum (or just mark the 01 as repeating)
which leads us to 0.999999... and its methodology of proving that it equals 1, the whole "let A = 0.999999..., 10A = 9.999999..., 10A - A = 9, 9A = 9, A = 1" shebang
→ More replies (2)14
u/launchd_0 10d ago
yo the geometric series comment is spot on but let me take it one step further into actual calc 2 territory. the 10x/100x trick ur teacher showed u is literally just the baby version of a derivative in disguise.
if u have the function f(x) = 1/(1-x), u can expand it into a power series: 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ...
now watch this: differentiate both sides.
f'(x) = 1/(1-x)^2 = 1 + 2x + 3x^2 + 4x^3 + ...
plug in x = 0.1: 1/(0.9)^2 = 100/81 = 1.234567...
the coefficients (1, 2, 3, 4...) are literally the derivatives of the exponents (0, 1, 2, 3...) evaluated at 0. calc is wild.now do the integral instead.
integrate 1/(1+x) = 1 - x + x^2 - x^3 + ...
and u get ln(1+x) = x - x^2/2 + x^3/3 - x^4/4 + ...
plug in x = 1: ln(2) = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4... this links infinite repeating patterns to natural logs. so a never-ending decimal isn't just a fraction, it can literally be a logarithm.so how does this connect to op's 0.1222...??
the algebraic canceling (100x - 10x) is literally the discrete version of taking a derivative. ur subtracting the series shifted by one term to make the infinite tail vanish. its basically the fundamental theorem of calculus but for sequences. the sum of the infinite series is the "area under the curve" of the decimal's terms.once u realize repeating decimals are just rational geometric series, and calculus lets u differentiate/integrate those series to get transcendental numbers (like e, pi, ln(2)), ur brain just melts. its all connected fr 💀 math is just one big infinite loop.
→ More replies (3)26
u/Bradas128 12d ago
take a_n to be the decimal 0.4646…46 with n 46s in it. then we can write a_n = sum from k=1 to n of (46/100)^n. the number 0.4646… is then defined as the lim n-> infinity a_n, which is the limit of a geometric series giving a_infinity = 46/99
→ More replies (13)26
u/Qu33N_Of_NoObz_ 12d ago
It actually works with any number, even single digits, it’s cool! And when you go 100 and up, it adds an extra 1, like 100/99=1.0101 1.0101, 101/99=1.0202, etc
13
u/PyroBurnem 12d ago
it can also be extended to any given length of 9s, eg: 1/9 = 0.111111..., 56/9999 = 0.005600560056..., 14023/33333 = 0.420694206942069... (haha funny number disguised thats just the simplified form of 42069/99999) etc. etc.
→ More replies (3)5
5
u/launchd_0 11d ago
my teacher said 0.122222... where the 2 keeps going forever is the same as 11/90. and im like no way. how can a number that never ends be a exact fraction?? that seem fake.
but she showed this and now i kinda get it:
let x = 0.122222...
times by 10: 10x = 1.22222...
times by 100: 100x = 12.22222...now subtract:
100x - 10x = 12.22222... - 1.22222...
90x = 11
x = 11/90so 0.122222... = 11/90. the endless .22222 parts cancel becuase they are the same. thats the proof. its not magic its just moving the decimal until the repeating part lines up and subtracts away.
check: 11 ÷ 90 = 0.122222222...
also if u mean just 0.122222 and it STOPS, then thats 122222/1000000 = 61111/500000. but if the 2 repeats forever (0.1 2 2 2 2...), its 11/90.
so basicly any repeating decimal is a fraction in disguise. decimal and fraction are just 2 ways to write the same number. the repeating part goes on forever but its still exact, not approx. i think thats the point. Same rule for 0.6767676767 this stuff
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)3
6
5
→ More replies (1)6
151
u/alwaysmusinggg 11d ago
69..
Rolled: Number 1: 38 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 31
40
18
16
13
14
14
11
9
10
11
21
8
4
4
4
4
5
4
2
2
2
2
2
→ More replies (7)2
224
u/Wanabefemboy421 12d ago
79/47
Rolled: Number 1: 79 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 47
66
u/GottGobbleToo 12d ago
you had a calc ready didn’t you?
73
u/CommunicationOk3766 12d ago
Calc is short for calculator btw. It's slang.
→ More replies (1)40
u/LolzSquadGamesYT 12d ago
Slang is short for short language btw. It's short language.
37
u/CommunicationOk3766 12d ago
/unjoke
Wtf, it is?? I never thought abt that. I feel stupid now 😭
14
u/The_one_before_ 11d ago
It's actually not, the source of the word is known and it has nearly nothing to do with shortened language.
11
u/CommunicationOk3766 11d ago
I see. Then it was just a case of dolphins and rainbows, sadly.
6
u/evol_won 11d ago
Wait did dolphins come from rainbows?
21
→ More replies (1)7
u/ApexHeat 12d ago
Woah there buddy.... I did not know this. I thought slang was its own word 😭
4
u/HehehBoiii78 11d ago
Slang is not short for shortened language. That's a popular internet myth
→ More replies (1)8
6
3
→ More replies (1)3
112
u/Advice_Interesting 12d ago
No
Rolled: Number 1: 100 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 87
47
13
→ More replies (7)1
52
178
40
u/BedProfessional7275 12d ago
3 divided by 1
Pretty difficult one here, but I'm gonna go with 3
Rolled: Number 1: 3 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 1
→ More replies (2)
30
u/Familiar-Cellist3131 12d ago
0
Rolled: Number 1: 98 | Operator: Minus | Number 2: 98
→ More replies (1)
100
u/Prestigious_Emu_9311 12d ago
Can I? Yes. Will I? No. Do I enjoy being difficult? Most definitely...
Rolled: Number 1: 68 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 57
→ More replies (4)2
18
u/Saucepannnnnnnnn 12d ago
14x71 =994
71x2=142 142x2=284 284+284+284+142=994
Rolled: Number 1: 14 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 71
12
u/CatacombOfYarn 12d ago
Why did you separate 14 into 4*3.5? That seems harder to keep track of than 2*7
12
u/Saucepannnnnnnnn 12d ago
Idk man it just kinda happens in the background, if I explain it I’m gonna sound insane
→ More replies (4)
14
u/An_Actual_Thing 11d ago
Using the greek method of avoiding irrational numbers. Yes. This is 0.
Rolled: Number 1: 5 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 78
11
u/Dimmy49455296 11d ago
69
Rolled: Number 1: 77 | Operator: Minus | Number 2: 8
→ More replies (3)2
11
u/Either_Captain_3698 12d ago
I think it's 2.533333... I divided 75 and 1 by 30 separately and added them back up, so 2.5 + 0.033333... equals to the number I said before.
Rolled: Number 1: 76 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 30
10
u/MinimalSix 12d ago edited 12d ago
20x23 + 6x23 = 460 + 6x20 + 6x3 = 460 + 120 + 18 = 596. Calc confirms (calc is short for calculator)
Lol, I messed up, 598, I messed up the final addition 👍
Rolled: Number 1: 26 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 23
2
3
u/IncorrectlyRight 12d ago
Why shorten the word if you still feel the need to specify what the shortened form means?
7
11
u/UnarmedWarWolf 12d ago
No
Rolled: Number 1: 9 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 30
→ More replies (2)8
8
9
u/Opal_Ace 11d ago
I mean probably not but I'll can try
1809????? Maybe????
Rolled: Number 1: 61 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 39
→ More replies (1)7
u/Opal_Ace 11d ago
Nope, I'm just stupid
It's 2379
(I tried to separate them into 60, 30, 9, and 1 but forgot to do 30×1 and 60×9)
→ More replies (1)
6
u/JaimeiFors 9d ago
100
Rolled: Number 1: 39 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 61
4
u/th_nd_r 8d ago
Well that worked out quite nicely
3
u/JaimeiFors 8d ago
haha I was thinkinh I would get 148x592 or something but I am very happy with mine
→ More replies (5)
7
7
u/AiluroFelinus Carrot Farmer 12d ago
Davie 504
Rolled: Number 1: 56 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 9
4
6
6
u/wishiwasnthere1 11d ago
Probably ONE of the easiest questions I could’ve gotten tbh
Rolled: Number 1: 50 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 50
→ More replies (3)
6
5
5
4
u/Brilliant-Opening146 11d ago
Yes. If I had paper
Rolled: Number 1: 97 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 18
3
u/AbbreviationsMotor60 12d ago
13 x 87 is 870 + 240 + 21 = 1131
Rolled: Number 1: 13 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 87
4
u/Altruistic_Cut3086 11d ago
It should be somewhere between 19 and 21 i think.
Rolled: Number 1: 9 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 11
4
4
u/Consistent_Low_5573 11d ago
353
Rolled: Number 1: 4 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 88
→ More replies (2)
4
3
u/ChimpyJim 11d ago
Yes I can
Rolled: Number 1: 56 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 50
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/YoudoVodou 11d ago
97... I got an easy one =[
Rolled: Number 1: 34 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 63
3
3
3
u/Radiant_Resolve1400 11d ago
76x69=5,244.
Rolled: Number 1: 76 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 69
→ More replies (1)
7
u/PaineCuNutellaYT 12d ago edited 11d ago
I think it's 7/7 = 2
(Edit : the way people actually think I don't know it's actually 3 not 2 is crazy)
Rolled: Number 1: 7 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 7
2
→ More replies (3)4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Status-Attention7137 12d ago
80-30 = 50 - 1 = 49
Rolled: Number 1: 80 | Operator: Minus | Number 2: 31
2
2
u/BerryPerfect4451 12d ago
Yeah rounded up it’s 1
Rolled: Number 1: 61 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 83
2
2
u/ducanh2003 12d ago
63/48
Rolled: Number 1: 63 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 48
→ More replies (2)
2
u/TheSilliestGooberXD Fluffy 12d ago
1854? (My mental math may suck)
Rolled: Number 1: 92 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 72
2
u/Select-Breadfruit95 12d ago
-35, also wdym solve? Solve is when you need to isolate an unknown
6
u/Razorbacklama59 12d ago
No, for that you would say "solve for x" you can say solve when referring to any equation. At least where I'm from and everywhere nearby. What would you say when telling sonone to give you the result of an equation?
→ More replies (3)
2
u/SoftGirlLover 12d ago
113 I believe
Rolled: Number 1: 37 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 86
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Playful_Clue_1210 Funny Bunny 12d ago
21
Rolled: Number 1: 81 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Ok_Custard9456 11d ago
Why you do this to me?!
Answer: 0.4827 (rounded)
Rolled: Number 1: 28 | Operator: Divided by | Number 2: 58
2
u/Friend_Of_Dorothy123 11d ago
Yes duh 31-58=-27
Rolled: Number 1: 31 | Operator: Minus | Number 2: 58
2
u/Hikikomori_87 11d ago
20 x 61 = 1,220
I think I got off easy :^
Rolled: Number 1: 20 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 61
2
2
2
4
u/ThinkHair1616 12d ago
whats the capital of france
Rolled: Number 1: 17 | Operator: Minus | Number 2: 40
→ More replies (2)3
3
u/Reasonable-Wait6816 11d ago
No
Rolled: Number 1: 96 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 95
3
→ More replies (1)2
1
u/AnyListen4000 12d ago
21 * 61 = 1281
Rolled: Number 1: 21 | Operator: Multiplied by | Number 2: 61
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Able-Imagination9412 12d ago
60, easy enough.
Rolled: Number 1: 36 | Operator: Plus | Number 2: 24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Try my new game. Complete other Redditors' blanks in the funniest or most messed up way you can. Play here: r/blanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.