[2016-04-05] college funding

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2016-04-05] college funding

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by Netweasel » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:43 am

Personally, I think it would have been funnier if the amount given had been $20.80.

(1+2+3+ ... +62+63+64)

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by a1s » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:09 am

Mez wrote: it's an English joke because he quite literally meant "and two on squares 2-64".

Could you explain that again? I'm pretty sure "so on" means "following the patter established above", not "using the last entry for the entire list, except for special cases described above".

(I'm leaning towards the 2^n cents on the 2^n th square interpretation)

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by kst » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:43 pm

sorabain wrote:
kst wrote:I got that the son was expecting $184,467,440,737,095,516.15 (doubling the amount on each square).


To be honest if the son was expecting that much, and his dad isn't some kind of genie out of a bottle then he's a bit clueless for choosing it. How is dad going to pay up such an amount?

...


I just accepted that as part of the joke.

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by Drago10010 » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:34 pm

But shouldn't the total be $4.07, since he said "squares" and not "spaces"? lol

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by legodavee123 » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:26 pm

ManoBore wrote:If you assume that the pennies are about 1 mm thick, then did the exercise the way the son was expecting, the final tile would have a stack of coins one light year tall.


Pennies are actually about 1.51892mm thick, so the final square would have a stack 1.48 light years tall! ... And about the mass of Cordelia (the innermost moon of Uranus). ... And about 10 times the surface area of the Earth if laid out flat, assuming 100% filled space (about 2/3 of the surface area of Neptune).

He actually may have made the smart choice, as this amount of pennies would cause inflation to destroy their value, and possibly destroy the Earth's ecosystem as well. He chose wisely.

DaveE

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by ManoBore » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:34 pm

If you assume that the pennies are about 1 mm thick, then did the exercise the way the son was expecting, the final tile would have a stack of coins one light year tall.

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by Mez » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:15 pm

Adkit wrote:Man, I came to this forum for the first time ever and realized it's not for me based on this thread.

He said one penny on square one, two on square two "and so on". That implies he's putting two on all the other squares as well. It's an English joke, not a math joke and most of you seem to overthink it WAY hard.


It's a math, english, and dick dad joke. It's a math joke because the dad described the beginning of the chessboard wheat problem, t's a dick dad joke because he presumably taught his son the chessboard wheat problem, and it's an English joke because he quite literally meant "and two on squares 2-64".

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by legodavee123 » Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:05 pm

Fun Fact:

He got the better end of the deal. Had he elected option 1, he would not have gone to college, and would have gotten $0.00.

(That's actually what I was expecting the alt-text to be!)

DaveE

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by VMLM » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:32 pm

He should've trained his son in formal logic and game playing. Then again, he probably didn't just so he could pull off this "life lesson".

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by sorabain » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:23 am

kst wrote:I got that the son was expecting $184,467,440,737,095,516.15 (doubling the amount on each square).


To be honest if the son was expecting that much, and his dad isn't some kind of genie out of a bottle then he's a bit clueless for choosing it. How is dad going to pay up such an amount?

Like many others here I thought his dad was going with an arithmetic progression and came here to see what the actual sequence was.

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by Consrupticus » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:13 am

kst wrote:e "You're lucky it's not $0.96" was a pay equity joke (rather than 1¢, 2¢, 1¢, 2¢, 1¢, 2¢, ...)

Thanks for explaining that bit!

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by peter_rogers » Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:14 am

I suppose it's a bit silly, but you could also get to $1.27 with this sequence: 1¢ + 2¢ + 3¢ + 1¢ + 2¢ + 3¢ + ... + 1¢ (on the 64th square). Basically the same as 1¢ + 2¢ + 2¢ + ... + 2¢.

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by randomGeek » Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:06 am

For the $1.27 sequence:
The total value of all pennies on the chessboard is always equal to 2n -1. Hence, on Square1, the total value must be 2(1) - 1 = 1. On Square2, the total value must now be 2(2) - 1 = 3, hence two pennies are added to Square2 to make a total of 3 pennies on the board. On Square 3, the total value must be 2(3) - 1 = 5, so two pennies are put on Square3 to make a total of 5. Thus, 1 penny on Square1, and 2 pennies on all following Squares for a total of 2(64) - 1 = 127.

For the 0.96 sequence:
One penny on every odd numbered square, 2 pennies on every even numbered square, or 1,2,1,2,1,2... for a total of 96.

Moral of the story:
Always request more datapoints!

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by shenando » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:16 am

I guess $1.27 is a way lower figure as compared to $20.80 even if relatively speaking negligible as compared to the exponential 64 squares.

Re: [2016-04-05] college funding

Post by kst » Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:15 am

OK, I got the joke -- just not quite the joke Zach was actually telling.

I got that the son was expecting $184,467,440,737,095,516.15 (doubling the amount on each square).

Since $1.27 is 2**7-1 cents, I assumed the father just stopped after the 8th 7th square rather than putting 2 cents on each square after the first.

And I thought the "You're lucky it's not $0.96" was a pay equity joke (rather than 1¢, 2¢, 1¢, 2¢, 1¢, 2¢, ...) -- which would have made more sense if the woman had said it rather than the father.

Joke's on you though, Zach -- it was funny anyway!

Top

cron