why is my answer (next post) wrong?
i say its impossible because of thidi know this is wrong now but i want to know why
>>11465541Yes you are brain controlled.
>>11465542basically how can you make a perfect square with the area in white, green, orange?
>>11465542>>11465545in other words dont we just get a situation like this where it doesn't matter how you move the pieces you wont have enough
>>11465542if youre asking seriously, its a trick question where the middle cross "+" that divides the big square into 4 squares is actually completely ignored in the answer. pic related is how its done
>>11465565i know the answer but i want to know why im wrong when i say it's impossible because of this
>>11465541idk if it's my autism or her brainrot but this was incredibly easy
>>11465576>incredibly easynow explain how im wrong >>11465573
>>11465565That's still wrong according to a sum of all logical interpretations of the verbiage in the question. The key word is "also." "Also" implies recognition of the division you will be making when you create either your shaded or unshaded square. The "also" requires that both shaded and unshaded spaces must both be a square. The shaded part must be a square, and the unshaded must ALSO be a square. Everyone who answered "no" read the logical interpretation of the question correctly.
>>11465587Damn this nigga is right
>>11465587no its the big square and small squares and "also" the unshaded part. the shaded part does not need to be a square.
>>11465604>no its>its"It is" is what the intention of the creator of the question supposedly "had in mind." That is completely obscure to us. Therefor, the only sound way to come to a resolution of the question proposed is to aggregate the entire set of possible readings of the intention and find the solution that fits them all. Your response cannot be applied to the entire set of potential interpretations of the question. Mine can. That's why I'm right.
>>11465587no it doesn't, the "also" refers to the overall shape before shading.
>>11465646Oh my god you are really convincing me that you believe that! Gosh I really care about convincing someone who clearly didn't understand a single word in my previous posts! Golly, you've got me awfully flustered and upset! Get rekt, pussy.
>>11465587
>>11465613Your solution does not satisfy all readings of the intention. If the also refers to the 'four small squares' and not the 'half', then no is the wrong answer.
garlic salt never admits to being wrong lol. He just doubles down
>>11465542you are shading more than half of it
>>11465587the squares referred to in "also" are the big square and the 4 small squares. It doesn't say the shading has to be square or that it is or will be square.
>>11465541
>>11465541what's so hard about that? don't they teach kids how to use a ruler these days?
think outside the box>>11465981would work like dis too
>>11465565but thats the easiest way with no calculation or measuring required
>>11465981That's not a square either. The shaded part is four interconnected rectangles.
>>11465720Squares are volumetric. The solution you're replying to is not two squares because the moment you insert a square tilted 45 degrees into the original square the original square loses it's volumetric value supportive of "square"-ness. It is a square with 4 triangles connected to it. A perimeter is not a shape. It is a line.Next?
>>11466110Only the unshaded part must be a square. The question is more about comprehension of the question than the solution.
The question is deliberately written in such a way that it is easy once you understand what is being asked. Its more about reading comprehension than maths or geometry. The small squares are literally irrelevant, a distraction, It is simply asking you tio make a square half the size of the original large square.
>>11466110>a 2D shape is volumetric
>>11466142Marijuana gave him forbidden knowledge.
>>11466147>blah blahnah ur dumb"here is a square. Shade half of it, the unshaded part must also be a square"Nowhere is it saying the shaded part must be square. You failed the reading comprehension test.
>>11466124 >Only the unshaded part must be a square.This is not only not specified in the question, there is language present to suggest otherwise. >The question is more about comprehension of the question than the solution.This is incorrect because of how poorly this is phrased. A response similar to what you are probably trying to say here is better phrased in one of my previous responses.>Only the unshaded part must be a square. >The question is more about comprehension of the question than the solution.This is contradictory and you have proposed no response that satisfies this contradiction. I have earlier in one of my previous responses. Go back and read it.>>11466137>The question is deliberately written in such a way that it is easy once you understand what is being asked. Prove it. You have no idea what the intention or intellectual limitations of the author was.>The small squares are literally irrelevant, a distraction, It is simply asking you tio make a square half the size of the original large square.If it was it would be stated as simply. There is a valid logical reading of the question that would make that outcome false.>>11466142*Has area. Thank you for helping with some of the menial tasks of tidywork in my responses!
>>11466150>>blah blah>nah ur dumbconcession accepted>Nowhere is it saying the shaded part must be squareYes it does.
shut fuck up niga
>>11465997that's because this thing doesn't require calculation or measuring.. nor does it require outsmarting (so there's nothing wrong with doing it the easy way, if that's the correct way)friendly reminder that this "test" is not rocket science, it's just a fun game for children..this is like complaining that Kirby bosses aren't up to standards with Elden Ring bosses
>>11466151>If it was it would be stated as simplyNo because the test is "can you understand this slightly convoluted written question", so thats the point of the question rather than how to actually do it.
Its like that question about 7 sons and 7 daughters going somehwere or whatever, its a distraction and the answer is easy once you understand the question
assume there is one square under the square and shade the whole thing
>>11466169you are a menace for introducing extra dimensions into this
>>11466157>friendly reminder that this "test" is not rocket science,I'd love to see the source where you read the author of the question stating as such.>>11466160See above and multiple other posts I've made in this thread regarding intention.The problem you people are having is that you keep using the idea "it's a reading comprehension problem" to justify your response but your response doesn't actually solve the comprehension problem. The problem is not that the reader's comprehension is lacking it's that it's the writer's. And you all are so proud of yourself that you've crafted a response that you THINK might please some unknown idiot who will never even read your response. How pathetic is that?This is neither a geometry problem nor a reading comprehension problem. It's a cultic use of language to manipulate consensus so that precision will always be obscure problem. You all are literally rolling around in mud and shit and saying "Hey I could be in a mansion, you can't prove this isn't mud or shit" and I'm saying "I'm neither in a mansion nor in mud or shit so I'm definitely better off than you."
>>11466172Yu could'nt even solve a child's puzzle mate, you have IQ < dog
>>11466171They just forgot to mention the square above is blocking our view of it.
>>11466151>This is not only not specified in the question, there is language present to suggest otherwise.old man is legit getting dementia
>>11466172thanks for your bulleye shot
>>11465541unintelligent jews putting family members in power (yes that whole thing about them having higher IQs is a literal psyop to excuse them power mongering, they actually have a 85-95 IQ fairly tested on average)
>>11466172it.... it literally is... bro did you skip elementary school?next you're gonna tell me you don't know how to create a square inside a square by only moving 2 matches (for anyone who remembers that game)
>>11466361Oh my god you are really convincing me that you believe that! Gosh I really care about convincing someone who clearly didn't understand a single word in my previous posts! Golly, you've got me awfully flustered and upset!Get rekt, pussy.
>>11466465it's made for kids, end of story
>>11466497I will accept this second concession from you. Really, you don't need to keep conceding to me. Go home, lick your wounds, better luck next time, you fucking idiot pussy. Grow some balls, loser.
>>11466504>grow some ballsthat has nothing to do with the conversation.. like what is it i need to stand up for myself against? you disagreeing with me?if anyone needs to grow balls it's you because you're throwing a tantrum over a minor disagreement.. lmfaooo imagine being so weakminded that THIS is the only way you can respond to information you don't like hearing..that makes (You) a bigger pussy than me..
