how intelligent is /b/
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
how intelligent is /b/
100 minutes
5 minutes
20 minutes
>>697283815
20 minutes?
>>697283929
this
>>697283993
wait no whatever 5 divided by 100 is
>>697283899
Wasted dubs stupid cunt
1 minute
>>697283993
>>697284022
I'll go get the bleach ready
5 minutes. Next.
400 diamonds per wall
>>697283815
Too vague.
Does it take them 5 minutes to make 5, at a rate of 1 per minute? Or 1 per 5 minutes?
>>697283929
This
5 minutes. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.
>>697284070
A machine takes 5 minutes to make a widget. Read OP again and then Alt + F4
The widgets can help build the wall
>>697284231
I'm not sure if it's worse that you actually think this was clever, or that people are actually going to waste time reading it
Retard answer: 100 minutes
Average answer: 5 minutes
Smart as fuck answer: 20 minutes
>>697284265
r u stupid? it takes 5 machine 5 minutes to make 5 widgets
>>697284231
If 5 machines make 1 per minute for 5 minutes, then you get 25 so it's clearly 1 per 5 minutes
1 hour and 4o minutes.
bout tree fiddy
>>697283815
medfag here. answer is 17
Depends. Are each machine working on a separate widget? or are they all working on one at the same time?
If the former: 100 minutes.
If the latter: 25 minutes
>>697283815
If we assume that the machines are working at peak capacity, 1 machine can make 1 widget in 5 minutes. So five machines can make five widgets in five minutes. Each takes five minutes to make 1 widget.
So 6 machines can make 6 widgets in fove minutes. Because it takes 1 machine five minutes to make 1 widget.
So 100 machines all working at the rate of one widget per five minutes could make 100 widgets in five minutes. Because each makes 1 widget in five minutes.
This of course scales, 200 machines could make 200 widgets in five minutes, or 10,000 machines could make 10,000 widgets in five minutes. It has nothing to do with fractions or dividing or anything, it's going to be five minutes fkr the same number of widgets to machines.
It's five. 5 machines each make 1 widget for a total of 5 widgets. It takes 1 machine 5 minutes to make 1 widgets. 5 machines 5 widgets 5 minutes. 100 machines 100 widgets 5 minutes. It's always 5 minutes.
>>697284420
>>697284420
Retard: The Post
It's 5 minutes, you "smart as fuck" piece of SHIT. fuck off and die.
>>697284588
These are the dubs we're looking for
>>697284440
Missing the point, whether the widgets have to be in groups of 5 is irrelevant; they produce widgets at a ration of 1 widget per machine per unit of time in this scenario. Given that 100 is a number divisible by 5, all you proved is that you're to stupid to read a statement in context. Better luck next time
>>697284737
>>697284420
5 minutes is what the average person gets when reading the question.
If you think about it a little harder you'll see why its 20 though, or maybe you won't because you were dropped as a baby
the horse's name is friday
>>697283815
5 minutes
>>697283815
1 machine takes 5 minutes to create a widget, it is impossible for it to take 25 minutes or less, it would hover take 25 minutes for 1 machine to create 5 widgets, so a 100 machines will produce a 100 widgets in 5 minutes.
>>697283815
If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, then it means it takes 1 machine 5 minutes to make 1 widget.
So 100 machines will take 5 mites to make 100 widgets
If it takes 5 minutes for 5 machines to make 5 widgets, it doesn't take 20 times as long for 20 times as many machines to make 20 times the widgets. It will take the same 5 minutes for 100 machines to make 100 widgets, and it will take 5 minutes for 1000 machines to make 1000 widgets, and so on, because each machine spits out one widget every five minutes. That is the rate of widget production for the machines, and it doesn't change no matter how many machines you are running at once.
Answer: it would take 5 minutes for 100 machines to make 100 widgets.
>>697283815
Okay, I'll give it a try.
If 5 machines make 5 widgets in 5 minutes, I guess it takes each machine 5 minutes to make 1 widget.
If each machine makes one widget per 5 minutes, it will take 100 machines to make 100 widgets in 5 minutes.
>>697284915
i like how you're trying to seem smart without actually adding any insight
>obviously the answer is 9 and if you can't see why you're a moron, no I won't explain it, I'm above that
>>697284915
>If you think about it a little harder you'll see why its 20 though, or maybe you won't because you were dropped as a baby
nice trolling, you autismo.
Each machine teachs 5 minutes to make a widget. If there are 100 of them and they each make a widget (100 widgets) they each only take 5 minutes. They don't wait in line.
It's 5 minutes though.
>>697284915
Explain your reasoning, and I can prove why you are wrong.
>>697284440
> r u
> calling someone else stupid.
Fucking kids.
>>697284915
stupidest post of the thread
here's your (You)
>>697284915
every machine produces 1 widget every 5 minutes, the time it takes is constant and won't change. so a 100 machines will produce a 100 widgets in 5 minutes, it won't magically take 4 times as long. Otherwise explain your reasoning.
>>697284915
all those (You)s
>inb4 HURRR I GOT YOU GUIZE I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED.
nice job, you fail basic logic and reasoning.
>>697284915
Lets phrase this in a way someone with autism can understand.
A group of 5 machines can make 5 widgets in a 5 minute window.
20 groups of 5 machines, or 100 machines, can produce 20 times the result as a single group of machines in 5 minutes.
If the remaining level of arithmetic is beyond you, go drink bleach.
>>697285260
>>697285296
The things you're assuming from the first statement arent explicitly stated. If you solve it without assumptions you get 20 minutes. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how
1 minute
>>697283815
trick question. fucking saged
>>697284915
>>697284420
>Smart as fuck answer: 20 minutes
>Smart as fuck
lmao trying to sound smart and ended up looking like a fool.
back to gedit with your liberal arts degree.
>>697285655
>I'll leave it up to you to figure out how
Still on that b8 train, riding all night.
>>697285738
>>697285572
>>697285566
All these butthurt retards
see
>>697285655
Other people in the thread have gotten an answer of 20 minutes, why cant you?
>>697285655
You're trying to make a statement about work done in parallel rather than in series.
What you fail to realize is that we already understood this; it doesn't make you any less retarded.
http://www.strawpoll.me/10865687
Which one?
>>697285886
>people
lol
>>697285655
>>697285886
lol, this samefag kid.
and what "assumptions" are those?
you still haven't explained your reasoning, you're just dodging now.
> I'll leave it up to you to figure out how
>All these butthurt retards
Nice bait.
Explain your reasoning, or you forfeit your (retarded) argument.
>>697285886
only one person in this thread has gotten an answer of twenty, and that person is a moron
>>697283815
5 minutes
>>697285886
>Other people
>>697284191
This
>>697285738
100/5 = 20
How? how can you even get tot this thing and expect it to be valid?
If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? ______ minutes
In 5 minutes, 1 machine can make 1 widget.
In 5 minutes, 2 machines can make 2 widgets.
In 5 minutes, 3 machines can make 3 widgets.
·
·
·
·
In 5 minutes, 100 machines can make 100 widgets.
SOLUTION: 5 minutes
its 5 minutes, how fucking stupid is /b/.
it takes 5 machine 5 minutes to make 5 ???
so it takes 100 machines 5 minutes to make 100 ???
The time doesn't change.
>>697286061
These two got it
>>697283993
>>697284022
plus me
>>697283815
100 minutes. Each machine makes a widget in a minute exactly, but they have to work in series.
>>697283815
5 minutes.
assuming each machine works on one widget at a time, and the machines don't interact with each other in any way. that means it takes 1 machine 5 minutes to make 1 widget.
so the number of machines is irrelevant. you'll get however many widgets there are machines in 5 minutes.
20 minutes
>>697286232
But explain how you got your answer retard. Stop avoiding the question.
>>697283815
300 sec
>>697286270
no you idiot. Each machine takes 5 fucken minutes. God damn.
>>697284117
hes right you dumb nigger.
>>697286157
what? it's 5 minutes, not 20
>>697286232
posts from your phone don't count.
even if 99% of the posters got 20, they'd still be wrong.
>>697286232
8% of the posters got it wrong then. pretty good i say.
I still don't get how you think 20 is correct, what do you do? divide a hundred between 5?
>>697286192
This is the fucking answer, congrats geneiusfag.
20 minutes
>>697283929
This is the correct answer you cunts
>>697286341
If the widget requires 5 machines to make (stages) then things change, my brother.
>>697283929
This, assuming they're all working at the same time.
>>697286527
I agree it's 20 minutes.
If you don't get 20 minutes your retard.
>>697283815
5 machines make 5 in 5 minutes means each individual machine makes 1 in 5 minutes.
100 machines making 100 also takes 5 minutes.
If you genuinely can't come to this conclusion on your own kill yourself.
Sent from my Android Phone
>>697283929
/thread
5 minoots
https://discord.gg/Jt7Jq join and fuck it up she streamin
>>697283815
Each machine makes one widget in five minutes. Five machines = five widgets in five minutes. One hundred machines still each make one widget every five minutes. So it takes five minutes for one hundred machines to make one hundred widgets.
>>697286486
No, it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets. Nobody said anything about each machine taking 5 minutes.
>>697286621
I R O N Y
>>697286599
of course, but that's why it's a great troll pic. these asshats will argue over it endlessly even though it's open to interpretation.
>>697286658
Its a Virus dont click
CAPTCHA:111
>>697283815
Of \b\ was intelligent, then they could see what's really going on
So no, they're just a bunch of mindless drones like Reddit, and 9fag
>>697286621
>>697286527
>>697286368
I agree, it's 20 minutes. retarded if you don't think so.
>>697286697
No one said anything about them working in a series either.
>>697286599
no it doesn't, because you still have 100 machines, that's 20 groups of 5 machines, if each group of 5 makes 5 widgets than the total of the 20 groups would be 20 times 5 which is still 100 widgets in 5 minutes
>>697284420
I agree, it's 20 minutes. these people are retarded
>>697286232
k
5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes
Not 20 you mindless fucking retards.
>>697286192
>>697284420
20 minutes is the correct answer
>>697286621
I love how you can recognize this one guys posts just by the fuck awful grammar.
Also by the fact that people started guessing 20 after someone called him on the fact he was alone in that response.
g.g. retard
>>697284420
answer is 20 minutes. all else are stupid.
>>697283815
>>697283815
4 minutes.
Hear me out:
5 machines take 5 minutes to build 5 widget. That's one minute per machine, if they build widgets cascadingly (it is never specified that they don't). And since the widgets they build are made to build widgets themselves, the time exponentially decreases the more widgets are made.
In short, one machine builds a widget and begins a new widget while the next machine builds a widget, and the first widget builds its own widget. All three mechanical devices create new widgets, and those new widgets add on to the stack of widget production - as well as the number of machines producing widgets, as each machine that finishes stirs a new machine from its sleep to create a new widget (which, in turn, the new widget creates its own widget that creates more widgets).
Now, for all this to take place, it couldn't be just 1 minute. But with the massive buildup of widget producers, it would create 100 widgets one minute faster than typically thought.
>>Logiked.
Step off, n00bs.
8 minutes and hour
>>697284420
it's 20 minutes. but i understand you dropped on your head, so you don't get it.
>>697284420
Got 20 minutes too.....
>>697286697
Covered this already, even if it's by a group 100 is still divisible by 5; you get the same answer.
Again, I'll go get the bleach
>>697284420
It is indeed 20 minutes. All these butthurts don't know basic math (100/5=20)
>>697283815
Holy shit you guys are retards. If it takes 5 minutes for 5 machines to make 5 widgets you can infer it takes a machine 5 minutes to make 1 widget if you have 1000 machines it will take 5 minutes for each machine to create one widget.
>>697284134
You're literally the only one who is right. These assholes are retarded. This is why I browse /sci/
If 100 machines don't actually improve the production quality of the widgets, then is the only point to produce the widgets faster? Mayb there are more important details to consider than the sheer wuantity of widgets produced, especially considering that any well-crafted object will likely outlast its function
>>697286868
>And since the widgets they build are made to build widgets themselves
Why would you assume that? By definition a widget is not a complete and functional machine, and thus isn't making anything.
>>697284588
This, at first I said 100, then 20, but this is clearly the answer. Each machine takes 5mins to make something. So if u have 100 machines they will make 100 somethings in 5mins. The rate of production doesn't change, the machines aren't working faster bc there's 100 of them. They are producing more but the individual rate doesn't change.
>>697284231
Dickhead. Stop killing your brain cells by thinking
>>697286868
/Thread
Only real smart answer
>>697283815
one minute
>>697286991
How is he right?
>>697286713
I'm actually going to go hang myself.
100 is still divisible into groups of 5
Can people just start assuming their retarded?
>>697284420
Stupid fuck idoits.. 20 minute is the answer.
Were you dropped on your fucking head as ababy?
5 machines taking 5 minutes to make 5 widgets means the machines are working at a base speed of 1 machine making 1 widget every 1 minute.
Therefore, 100 machines working at 1w/m would result in their load of 100 widgets being completed in 1 minute.
SSomeone please explain to me how it makes sense being 5 or 100. I get the 20 answer because it just has a different assumption of the wording of the question, but what are the rest of you retards on about.
>>697286868
This guy is either really high or a fucking moron.
>>Guess which
Naive solution:
5 machines spend 5 minutes on 5 widgets. This means that one machine creates one widget in 5 minutes, meaning that X machines will create X widgets in that time, which is independent.
>>697287046
mmm, morty's got boobs
Does a widget require five machines to complete it in one minute, or is one widget completed per machine in five minutes?
>>697284420
20 minutes
(Surprised not many other people got 20 minutes.. but smart people aren't that common so :/ .....)
>>697287089
But why are you dividing it by five?
>>697287071
because you're retarded
>>697287140
It's not. The answer is 4 dickface
>>697286991
retarded or maybe high
>>697283815
one minute because if all hundred machines were started right at the same time once it hits the one minute mark each one of them would have made 1 widget
>>697286977
That's a correct calculation but it's irrelevant to the problem. What are your units to arrive at time?
>>697287136
>>697286906
>>697284915
fuck off you faggot
my mom only dropped me once and when i was 2years old
>>697286787
I did
>>697286963
100.
The people in this thread are actually giving me a permanent severe disease.
>>697283815
thats why america need more math-books then guns
5 machine =5 minute=5 widget
multiplying the equation by 20
20x(5 machine =5 minute=5 widget) (bracket multiplication)
20x5 machine =20x5 minute=20x5 widget
100 machine =100 minute=100 widget
simple guys ,learn math and yes you can further elaborate by 100 min ,= 100/60 hours (its because 1 hour contains 60 minutes u retards)!
checkmate
>>697283815
5 machines are working, in 5 minutes, they each produce a single widget, totaling 5 widgets, thus we can conclude, a single machine to make a single widget would be 5 minutes. Therefore 100 machines each working for 5 minutes to produce 100 widgets.
Math = Hard
>>697286742
My point exactly
You guys care more about a "widget" and porn than anything else.
Oh yeah, you guys are so intelligent
[sarcasm intensifies]
>>697286868
>>697286868
>>697286868
Oh my god is he right?
>>697287140
the machines aren't producing 1 widget per minute they are producing 1 widget per 5 minutes
>>697286868
>>697286868
>>697286868
Oh my god he is right
>>697286906
I'm starting to think this guy is the OP, just having fun with it
>>697287340
5 minutes = 5 widgets
100 widgets/100 machines =1widget/1machine
100/5 =20 widgets/100 machines
Answer =20 minutes
Comprendo? Go back to mexico, you can't even do MATH.
So glad I'm white..... fucking idiot.
>>697283815
Unclear. Do you need 5 machines and a minute to make a widget? Do you need one machine and 5 minutes to make a widget? Does each machine need 1 minute to make a widget and they were working one at a time?
Let's assume each machine needs 5 minutes to make one widget and they work at the same time, since it seems like the most logical scenario.
If we have 100 machines working at the same time, we would need 5 minutes to make 100 widgets.
If the machines are working together, then the answer is 25 minutes. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets and we assume they are working TOGETHER, then we can assume the robots will work in sets of 5.
Now that there are 100 robots, we divide them up into teams to figure out how many teams there will be (20). Every 5 minutes we will receive 5 widgets; therefore, it will take 25 minutes to receive all 100 widgets.
If the machines aren't working together, then the answer is 5.
All of you are autists need to get laid
>Arguing about widgits when you've never even been inside a woman
1 machine - 5 minutes - 1 widget
2 machine - 5 minutes - 2 widget
3 machine - 5 minutes - 3 widget
....
100 machine - 5 minutes - 100 widget
Each machine produces 1 widget every five minutes. 100 machines would each produce 1 widget every five minutes.
>>697287179
it doesn't matter see
>>697286793
>>697287420
Why would you multiply both the input and the time factor by 20? If you need twenty times the output, either multiply the input by 20 or the time by 20, not both.
>>697287180
Show your work. I'm in the 5 min camp, I don't see how you can make the conclusion based on available info.
>>697287385
Them working in series would be an unstated restriction. You do not assume this by default.
>>697287598
But what about the widgets that produce more widgets? They would affect the time and decrease it.
>>4 minutes
>>697287634
mathematical proof is here:
>>697287528
>>697287278
I guess i might be retarded for doing the math assuming they worked in sequence not simultaneously. its 20 the other way, but for whatever reason i was imagining it as being like an assembly line where each machine is working in an order.
>>697287493
See the above, i just was assuming they were working in an order not at the same time. Correct answer with that assumption is 20
>>697287140
>5 machines taking 5 minutes to make 5 widgets means the machines are working at a base speed of 1 machine making 1 widget every 1 minute.
If 1 machine makes 1 widget every 1 minute, then 5 machines would make 5 widgets in 1 minute. After 5 minutes, you'd end up with 20.
You are way off base.
I'll tell you how it's 5. In the scenario, you turn on all 5 machines. They are all working away to make a widget. After 5 minutes, each of the five machines spit out their widget, which took them 5 minutes to make. That means after 5 minutes, you have 5 widgets in your bucket. So the rate is, 1 machine makes 1 widget every 5 minutes. Therefore 100 machines make 100 widgets after 5 minutes. All the machines are working at the same time.
>>697287583
>widgits
fuck
1 hour 40 mins pleb
>>697287551
>>697287679
Widgets, by definition, are incomplete machines. They cannot make more widgets.
>>697287502
I also came to this conclusion but everyone saying 5 convinced me so I didn't say anything. This problem depends on a lot
>>697286868
He says they are building widgets, not widget making machines.
5 minutes.
It 5 machines takes 5 minutes to make 5, that means each machine is pumping out 1 every 5 minutes
So 100 machines would pump out 100 items in 5 minutes
>>697287633
>Why would you multiply both the input and the time factor by 20? If you need twenty times the output, either multiply the input by 20 or the time by 20, not both.
and thst why 20 is the godfucking answer dubs confirm
100 minutes haha youre all retarded
>>697287420
In this scenario you have not only 20 times the producers, and therefore 20 times the output, you also have 20 times as much time to produce, and consequently 20 times more output in this example.
100 machines make 2000 widgets over 100 minutes
>>697287823
But if you make two widgets then they make a whole machine so it would cut the time down right?
>>697287528
..are you retarded? How did you suddenly get to 20widgets/100 machines
>>697287946
yes
>>697287551
every five minutes you will receive 5 widgets per group, that means after the first 5 minutes 20 groups will each have made five widgets, 20 times 5 equals 100. so after the first 5 minutes you will have 100 widgets
http://bigthink.com/praxis/a-three-question-math-quiz-that-predicts-whether-you-believe-in-god
Question 2. 5 Minutes. People posting 20 minutes prove there is no god.
>>697287792
You're right. I was calculating based on the idea 5 machines built 1 widget every 5 minutes.
>>697287843
Exactly. Building widgets. Widgets that build. Don't be so stupid. It says it right there in the equation.
>>697287980
100 goes into 20 5 times.
if a number goes evenly into something, then that means it's a "number family"
e.g. 5, 2, 10 is a number family
in this problem: 100, 5, 20
so the answer is 20 minutes because it completes the number family.
Someone make a thread on /sci/ plox.
>>697287690
That's not proof. That's shit.
Problem is deliberately ambiguous, like most of these troll posts, but it stands to reason that time required doesn't increase when relative amounts of machines and widgets go up by same amount.
Consider: it takes one factory one day to make one car. How many days does it take two factories to make two cars? One.
Same concept. Not hard.
>>697287897
But the input is already multiplied by 20, therefore the time has to stay constant.
>>697287946
No, that's assuming way too much about the problem. All we know is that widgets are being made. We know nothing of their function.
1 min is possible u dont know if these machines are in lane at the first and parallel in second.
1min + 1min + 1min + 1min + 1min = 5 widgets
Or
1min = 1 widget
1min = 1 widget
1min = 1widget
... X100
>>697283815
69 hours so 6900 minutes
>>697287695
so in your math problem you were making 100 machines do the work that could normally be done by 5 machines?
>>697288095
You aren't accounting for the widgets that build widgets. Stop typing and fucking listen for once. Jesus
5
>>697283815
what is widget built another widget ;is a machine is a widget? so machine built machine which built machine ... answer is either divide by zero or infinity
>>697287551
No. If they are working in groups of 5 to make widgets, it doesn't change anything.
If the group of five is working together, where each machine performs part of the task to make a widget, then the group would have to put out a widget every minute in order to make 5 widgets after 5 minutes.
So, if you have 100 machines, that is 20 groups of 5x machines. Each group turns out 1 widget every minute. And you have 20 groups. So after 1 minute you have 20 x 1 = 20 widgets. So after 5 minutes, you'd have ... 100 widgets.
>>697284134
Imma go with 1 as well
>>697288262
Jesus can't save you now.
Ugh...I feel like this is one person arguing with himself. I'm out. 5 minutes yo.
>>697288095
Confirmed trolling, no one is this stupid.
Guess we're all just trolls playing off each other hoping their a real frustrated retard out there somewhere
Production rate =product/time
So
Prod rate of 5 machine=5widg/5min
=1/min
So 5 mach= 1/min
Therefore
Mach= 1/5min
>>697288200
>>697288200
Widgets are incomplete machines have you even been paying attention to this? Two widgets make a whole machine that then starts building widgets alongside the 100 machines. They cut down the time by 1/5th.
The answer is 4, man.
>>697288114
why dont some /sci guy post the graph from wolfram alfa?
Listen. If five machines make 5 widgets. Yes you can divide it by 5 making 20 groups of 5 machines that make em in 5 minutes. They are all still working at the same time. Its 5 minutes.
the answer is five minutes, and if you get a different answer than your concept of math is flawed, or you are adding variables not included in the initial problem.
>>697287456
Widget=/=machine.
No, from a classic system problem like this, a widget is not functional unless otherwise specified.
The answer is 5 minutes. Part of intelligence is thinking efficiently. You guys are spending way too much time over thinking this. College graduate reporting in. If you took even a survey course on manufacturing process, this would be laughably rote.
>>697288604
Or you are misinterpreting the fucking question. Stop belittling my building widget theory.
>>697287748
I see what you mean, i just misthought that i was trying to say.
Like i said to earlier anon, for the rate of 1 per minute i assumed they worked in a line not at the same time. The question could be interpreted as that, but i assume thats not what the question is trying to say.
The answer is reasonably 5. When i did the math in my head for 20 i think i just got all confused. Im too drunk for math anon.
>>697288511
Hey, I know you're trolling and trying to bait people into getting angry, but you can at least come up with a better troll right? No one is really taking the bait and you're spamming the hell out of it.
>>697287679
I love that one guy posted a creative joke, and then a whole bunch of people who didn't get the joke jumped on board.
If widgets produced the more widgets than the question would be unsolvable without more examples with different ratios of widgets-time-machines
I run a machineshop that does basically anything requested. We have been doing this for ten years. We have a variety of engineers fabricators etc... with more degrees and endorsements than needed. We would have written a list of all possible meanings behind this hairbrained image. Sent it back with the image. Explained that specifics are required since you are working with machinery. Lastly we would have told you to fuck off.
>>697287633
>>697288200
>>697288511
whatever the dubs says;
>>697288720
your building widget theory is adding to the initial problem by assuming that the product you are creating is used to create itself. which is not stated in the initial problem. also i belittle who i want to belittle and you can't stop me so there.
>>697283815
/b/ is gay and therefore retarded.
Long like to /pol/
>>697287748
>>697288756
... I'm just going to go kill myself.
Things make 5 widgets per minute, in five minutes they make only 20 widgets?
>5 machines make 5 widgets in 5 minutes
5/5=1
>5 machines make 1 widget in 1 minute
1/5=0.2
>1 machine makes 0.2 widgets in 1 minute
0.2*100=20
>100 machines make 20 widgets in a minute
100/20=5
>it takes 5 minutes for 100 machines to make 20 widgets
>>697288795
I stopped doing it after my first post.
No clue who this is:
>>697288720
>>697288829
you love me ? thanks,but hey i'm not gay. would happy to fuck your mom though
lets say it takes me 30 seconds to produce a heaping tablespoon of cum,
so if there were 3 of me masturbating for 30 seconds, 3 tablespoon are produced
therefore, 100 of me masturbating all at once
for 30 seconds would produce 100 tablespoons, or .39 gallons, of cum
>>697283815
12 minutes.
How stupid are you all? Wtf
>>697287679
No... it takes 5 minutes to produce 1 widget. There is no exponential function unless time is greater than 5.
>>697289018
it takes 5 minutes for 100 machines to make 100 widgets*
>>697288756
>Like i said to earlier anon, for the rate of 1 per minute i assumed they worked in a line not at the same time. The question could be interpreted as that, but i assume thats not what the question is trying to say.
Doesn't matter if they are in a line or not. See my other post
>>697288356
> Im too drunk for math anon.
Well, that's true. If you were sober then your IQ would be low
500 minutes
/bread
With 100 machines running, the point of failure is higher and a few of those machines are likely to break down. So you have to call in your mechanics to fix the fucking things, which means you went over-budget and had to delay production, costing the company tons of money... as a result, they take all of your machines and outsource production to China.
So the answer is roughly 2-3 weeks.
>>697287946
Maybe.
If one machine makes 1 widget in 5 minutes then no, it wouldn't. No widgets would be complete to speed up the process before 5 minutes.
If 5 machines make a widget per minute the yes, widgets would be ready in time to speed up the process.
We would still need a ratio of widgets per machines to get anything out of it though.
tl;dr If it's 1 widget per machine per 5 minutes, as is general consensus, then widgets being assembled into machines doesn't change fuck all
>>697283815
60 seconds
>>697289220
but what if it takes all three of you jerking together to create 3 tablespoons of cum? you know one of you is required to finger your anus, another needs to fondle the balls?
>>697289257
But it works because each machine takes 1 minute to build a widget and they can only build after the one before has finished.
So then that widget creates a widget that creates a widget.
5 machines 5 minutes 5 widgets. 100 machines
5*x = 100
x = 20
20 x 5 = 100.
100 widgets in 5 minutes by 100 machines. You dumb faggots
GET IN HERE NIGGER
>>>/sci/8238261
GET IN HERE NIGGER
>>>/sci/8238261
GET IN HERE NIGGER
>>>/sci/8238261
GET IN HERE NIGGER
It's one minute you fucking retards
>>697289390
Machineshop guy here. Sounds like you have experience in this category. Ive dealt with this concept a hundred times lol fucking china. Fucking breakdowns.
>>>/sci/8238261
>>>/sci/8238261
>>>/sci/8238261
>>697289463
abstract thinking, i like it
5 minutes. Figured it out in 1 minute. My first guess without working it out in my head was 100 minutes.
it doesn't say whether each machine makes one widget. it says that it takes 5 to make 5 in 5 minutes. it might only take 1 minute to make each or it takes 3 minutes and each machine does a little bit of work and once the first machine is done with its work on the first widget, it takes 20 seconds to get ready to start again and it takes 10 sec to do its work...
this question is like "it takes a CPU 12 clock cycles to perform 5 operations, how many clock cycles will it take to perform 20 operations?" but you'd have to understand that different operations take different amounts of time and then, the CPU waits and actually performs a "no operation" for a clock cycle when it needs to until the registers clear and the operation can move on to another part of the CPU.
the way things actually work in the real world isn't as simple as you might imagine. it takes 5 years for hundreds of machines to make an intel i7. it may not be possible to create that 41-layer CPU in less than 5 years and maybe, if you started making one every second and feed it through the process, it could take 5 years plus 100 seconds to make 100 vs 1. think of it that way.
69 minutes
420 minutes
>>>/sci/8238261
/sci/ thread >>>/sci/8238261
>>>/sci/8238261
>>697289555
>>697289790
They all think its 5 minutes. /sci/ really isnt very smart at all
>>697289847
There is no fucking way it took one minute. Stare at a clock for one minute; that's a long time. Did you mean like, 5-10 seconds or something?
>>697283929
this
>>697290172
kek
>>697283815
why are all of these tests based on mathematics
>>697289063
> I love that
Notice the action is the focus, not your ass. I'm sure it's lovely though
>>697289657
I worked in tech support, same deal. Shit management = shit production, so they cut everyone and ship jobs to India.
Fuck Symantec
>>697290143
Looks crazy uncanny like Emma Watson
1 min i explained it
>>697284135
For yourself, yeah, you should, you Leafy watching waste of space.
>>697283929
5 min
>>697287237
The guys was assuming that widgets were made by machines in groups of 5, I was pointing out that this wouldn't change the result
let me explain why it's 100 minutes.
in the start, 5 machines working on the same piece make the job perfectly within the allotted time.
if we put 100 machines working on the same piece though, they will start to sperg each other, making the production much slower, thus 100 minutes.
The majority of people here cant even figure out a simple problem soving question, the human race is dead.
>>697289390
Kek. Too true though
>>697289390
>2-3 weeks
I see you work in the United States
>>697290172
Fucker, they asked me this shit at primary school when I was 7 and I got it wrong. It was 5 fucking minutes use your fucking brain.
>>697290314
because no smart person is bad at math
It's fucking 5 mins
>>697290410
At this point I'd go for either
Honestly speaking, it's actually been interesting to watch how long it takes respective trolls to realize their trying to troll another troll
You'll notice that the people answering 20 are the same person. The original troll; probably the OP
>>697289390
lol
>>697290749
wrong
>>697283929
Assuming they are all working each on one wodget at the same time, yeah.
But if not, it means that 5 machines make 1 per minute, meaning 100 machines will make 100 widgets in 20 minutes.
Its just like those multipication tasks with parenthesis they put on b so often, its just made to make retards on b argue and dumb ass trolls just keep tellinh everyone "incorrect" "retarded lmao" "kys hissss"
>>697290749
Technically you can be smart and dyslexic or something.
But practically? It you struggle with any subject before university level, at the very minimum, you're probably just stupid
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
>>697291226
10 cents
>>697286192
Couldnt have explained any better my friend. I hope common core fags understand this
>>697291143
that's also not true ... I'm sure if you think about it for more than 2 seconds you'll see why
>>697291226
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
>>697284588
Checked and correct
>>697283815
Not nearly enough information.
Machine? Can you be more vague? How do teh machines work? do they work together or independently? Is it a production line or simply a machine similar to a CNC producing widgets one at a time?
Not, enough, information.
If they are machines working individually, each creating 1 widget on it's own, then 5 minutes. 5 machines making 1 widget each takes 5 minutes, so each machine produces a widget in 5 minutes, thus 100 machines would take five minutes, as it takes five minutes for 1 machine to make 1 widget.
If it's a system in which the machines feed to one another in a production line, so 5 machines in a line pump out 5 widgets in 5 minutes, then 100 machines create 20 production lines, 20 production lines pumping out 5 widgets every five minutes,means in 5 minutes they'll still produce 100 widgets in 5 minutes.
If the machines work together in a more complicated way allowing you to produce say 1 extra widget for a sing machine added to the production line, then the question is impossible to answer with so little information.
Given questions like this are written by mentally deficient people who fancy themselves bright, it's likely im overthinking it, and the answer is 5 minutes because the only thing the writer considered was the most obvious situation, that being each machine producing a single widget itself in five minutes.
/thread.
>>697291309
Wouldnt that mean the total is 1.20?
>>697290143
>sci/ thread >>>/sci/8238261
they got some serious discussion over this /b/tard thread....like
>what if when we put more machines, the system starts overheating, thus decreasing the speed??
>When I say "there exist different possibilities" and you show me one that doesn't change things, that doesn't disprove me.
>the question is ill-posed and that's the correct answer. stop being retarded and READ what's being said.
this question is not as simple as it seem and in the core of it is a divide-by-zero thing.. there can not be a single answer for this ... a graphical representation will prove this
itt....little boys comparing size
100 walls per widget
>>697291226
Clearly the ball costs is free because you stole the ball but paid for the bat and dropped a dime while walking out.
>>697291518
>/thread.
/thread ur lyfe fag
>>697291414
Are you considering options, like woodwork or drama? Because if you struggle with any of the cores it's probably just a case of the stupid.
>>697291612
lets raid /sci/8238261
Machineshop guy here. We are laughing at you tards right now.
Original 5 machines took 5 minutes to produce 5 widgets. Order of machines not specified. Function of machines not specified. Type of widgets and their function not specified. You have to assume because of the law of averages that the machines either work in unison per widget or work on one at a time. If they work on 1 widget per machine then it is pointless to specify 5 machines when you could say one per widget per minute. Therefore we conclude 5 machines per widget per minute. If it took 5 machines one minute in unison to produce 1 widget. It will take the 100 of the same machines 100 minutes to produce 100 widgets. The added machines do not multiply the original efficiency as the original efficiency was already stated. 5 units+1 min=1 product.
>>697283815
what if there are diff type of machine /with diff speed.. the 5 machine given may have variable speed for output .. and so the other 100 may also be of variable speed of production
ITT:
It takes 9 women 9 months to produce 9 babies...
How long for 900 women to produce 900 babies?
>well dat's 1 baby a month, so...
Stop. Right. There.
5 minutes.
>>697283815
and what if there are diff type of machine /with diff speed.. the 5 machine given may have variable speed for output .. and so the other 100 may also be of variable speed of production
5 mins
DEMOCRACY >>> MATH
http://www.strawpoll.me/10877408
>>697291879
it takes 1 porn for me to jerk off in 5 min . how long will it take 20 porno for me to jerk off
>>697291847
Mechanic, equipment operator, production manager here.
If you work in a machineshop, you are very very very un-educated on process. Basic math seems to be hard for you too.
I really hope your boss doesn't leave anything important to you....
read >>697291518
even if all widgets are equal, all machines and the work they do may not be.
>>697292481
now draw it for 100 machines
>>697283815
1 minute?
5/5=1 widget/m
so 100 machines make 100 widgets in 1 minute
>>697286991
You must be retarded?
>>697292592
Kek
>>697292344
I would say you were right but this image functions as an equation. This equation does not suggest variables. It is clear cut. Plus i already mentioned there was not enough info in a previous post. So two answers. Not enough info or 100.
>>697292232
FUCK YO MAFFS
GAHD BLES AMRUCA
>>697283815
8 minutes per hour
>>697292592
well, if you look closely, it takes 4:56 to make 1 widget by 5 machines. if you start making 1 widget every second, 5 machines could make 5 in 5 minutes.
>>697292564
i wrote the response about CPU clock cycles, i don't need that guy's help.
>>697284731
Thank you, the only intelligent answer in this thread
>>697283815
5 mimutes
>>697292481
And you're still wrong? You're still got them in series. Try
Time
m1------------------
m2--------------------------- 5 minutes
m3------
m4---------------
m5-----------------------
>>697292756
if you WOULD say I was right, you didn't read the post, because it's 100% accurate.
You defaulted to the machines work in a production line and don't do equal work, I explained why that's the least likely scenario to infer, and if it is, the the question is pointless as not enough info.
you spent time drawing a picture that means nothing to demonstrate a point that is fully and completely explained by saying "If the machines don't work independently then the answer is more info needed."
You're demonstrating autism, wasting your time trying to seem more intelligent than you are.
5 per 5 = 5
so
10 per 5 = 2.5
so
100 per 5 = 0.025
100 per 100 = 2.5 minutes
^_^~ Did I get it rite captin?
>>697293227
Machineshop guy here. I drew no pictures.
>>697283815
5 Machines, 5 Minutes to make 5 Widgets.
It doesn't say if they're running in parallel or if each machine only makes one and then passes the duty to the next.
So it could either be:
Each machine takes 5 minutes to create each widget or 1 minute to create each widget.
So depending on the situation..
100 Machines would take either 100 or 500 minutes to make 100 widgets, depending on whether they're running in parallel or series.
>>697283815
what the fuck is a widget.
▲
▲ ▲
New thread
>>697293671
>>697293671
>>697283815
Nigger
>>697293440
I confused responses.
Still,
your math was way off.
Tits if truth say: 5 minutes!
Everyone who say something is a retarded trap fapper with a boipussy whose whore mum sucked your brains and balls throug your tiny, tiny cock. Fuck off trolls.
>>697284134
i wondered if im retarded to think its 1 or /b/ is retarded
>>697294066
Think about it some more
>>697291226
$0.05 for the ball
$1.05 for the bat
$1.10 total
