before you faggots try to justify 16, a square can have lines inside it.
>>713024773
thanks for the hint guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN_DXzAr9Lk
I on;y count 16
35
>>713025295
Nvm it keeps going
its 40
31
>>713024773
26 total squares.
41 precisely
37
Theres 24. Those gray lines dont count retards
16 1x1
9 2x2
4 3x3
1 4x4
The ones floating in the middle add 5 each
So 40 total
40
It would be 40. However, there are some spots where the line isn't complete. Also, since there would be countless spaces where the ink doesn't fully form a line and where the line isn't perfectly straight or the ink forms a blotch, it wouldn't count. On top of that, it can't be a square since a square is a 2-dimensional figure. The ink used exists in 3 dimensions, as it takes up volume.
>>713024773
>>713024773 7
>>713024773 °
40
40
>>713026631
Count these.
Can you /b/?
>>713026631
2,097,152
i count 34
>>713028045
i'm getting 39 here lol
>>713026631
$$$
>>713026631
How many?
2,097,152
>>713029050
n/m 36
>>713026488
kill yourself
>>713025703
Yup, 37 too
16 singles
9 quads
4 trips
1 big guy
2 nipples
8 nipplebits
=
40
40
>>713025703
Pretty much this
>>713025654
Look closer, Lenny.
>>713029314
Can you do this one>>713026631
too many for me to give a fuck
>>713026631
128x128 of the smallest...
40
>>713029685
There are only 40 though
>>713029874
39 too many then
>>713024773
26?
40
1 4X4
4 3X3
9 2X2
18 1X1
8 .5X.5
40.
>>713024773
32?
>>713029700
you count 3 squares x 3 squares right?
>>713029765
so 16,384, there are more though
>>713024773
The only square here is you baby!
>>713024773
>Main squares: 16+9+4+1 = 30
>Little squares: 2*(1+4) = 10
>10+30 = 40
Unless I fucked up, that's 40 squares OP.
Checkmate, faggot
>>713030119
No, you fucking moron.
>>713030436 I was asking what was meant
It is 20756
128x128=16384
64x64=4096
16x16=256
4x4=16
2x2=4
Add up
>>713026631
Is 20756 Right asx >>713030939 stated??????
40 it is
>>713031135
No.
>>713024773
>How Many Squares?
All of them.
>>713031327
Yes.
33
>>713024773
>tilefucker
>>713031511
No, it is forty 40
>>713024773
I got 35
![boy-cool-attitude-3020885[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zAqNH6s.jpg "boy-cool-attitude-3020885[1].jpg")
>>713024773
I only count one square
you
>>713030939
There is also 112x112 too, 12544 and more too.
>>713024773
576,000
>>713031785
shrekt op
>>713031985
What about this one?
>>713026631
I got 44.
>>713032185
How?
>>713032153
262144
>>713024773
I only see rectangles.
27
>>713031785
>>713032329
That's what I got...
>>713032302
Can you show your math sir?
Anyone saying anything other than 17 doesn't know how shapes work.
A shape is determined by how many sides it has. and a square has 4 equal sides.
>>713032824
>a square can have lines inside it.
you stupid illiterate nigger
>>713032899
Except... it can't.
So you're saying OP can just change the definition of what a shape is?
>>713032969
Troll, you must be a troll
>>713024773
8 smallest ones
16 bigger ones plus the 2 bigger ones that consist of the smaller ones
4 consisting of 2x2 medium blocks plus 4 of the same size in the respective middles and 1 in the very middle
4 consisting of 3x3 blocks in each edge
and the biggest block of 4x4 blocks
don't know, do the math
>>713033052
Actually, I'm a programmer who isn't retarded.
If you've actually ever went to school, you would know shit like this.... this stuff is like what, 3rd grade material?
>>713024773
34 yeah?
>>713033176
A square can have lines in it and still be a square.
>>713032824
Well, if you want to be anal then technically, since the lines are hand drawn, none of the sides are of truly equal length so there are 0 true squares.
>>713033329
Perfect, wish you had gotten quads too.
>>713033312
If it was a single square with one diagonal then yes it could since the outer walls of the shape have 4 sides.
>>713033312
Humans aren't perfect.
>>713032824
connect the lines through
>>713033556
You cannot grasp subtlety or abstract concepts, can you?
>>713032240
By miscounting. My bad. Recounting, I get 40.
>>713024773
As this gif demonstrates, there are 40 squares.
>>713033176
there are 40, you have to count EVERY square, that includes 'squares' made of 1x1, 2x2, 3x3 and also the final 4x4
who gives a fuck if you're a programmer
LOOOOOL
(40)
>>713033465
Hm, I was surprisingly close to quints.
>>713033767
Alright /b/ro, cool.
>>713033605
That's not how shapes work...
In 2D lines are boundaries that define a shape.. you can't just ignore a boundary because it "looks" like a square to your brain.
>>713033750
The question was "How many squares?" not "How many squares do you see?".
Obviously the human brain looks for patterns so we're gonna see more squares than are really there.
>>713033815
Considering I'm a game programmer and I work with geometry every fucking day because of it, I would say it's pretty damn important.
>>713033981
well then your games must be absolutely shit
you're wrong and you can't admit it
>>713033800
Saved and correct!
Thank you.
>>713033981
"In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral, which means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles"
SHUT THE FUCK UP
>>713024773
39 if I counted correctly.
>>713033176
I suppose you also think that concentric circles are no longer circles because they have lines inside them? And you probably also think that all the squares on this page aren't really squares? http://www.math-prof.com/Geom/Geom_Ch_20.asp
The tricky thing about trying to be a pedantic asshole is that when you're wrong, you just end up being an asshole.
>>713024773
>a square can have lines inside it
then the answer is 1 you dingus
>>713034267
Like I said in an earlier post, those are still squares because their external boundaries still have 4 sides of equal length.
>>713033981
this is now a thread about how stupid you are
>>713034240
You tell him.
Right on /b/rother!
>>713034427
Ouch, I was insulted by a third grader.
>>713033981
Whatever you are interpreting is a stunted view of the complete picture, open your mind and connect the lines.
>>713034501
but the answer to the puzzle is 40
so you're wrong, and you're around-the-house bullshit 'programmer' arrogance won't change that.
And embarrassingly for you it's now dominating the thread.
grow the fuck up
>>713034766
your*
>>713032682
512*512 = 262144
>>713025422
This is the correct answer.
>>713024773
25?
24.
>>713024773
40?
>>713034746
I can "see" the "squares"... but they aren't true squares.
>>713034766
Except it's not. I could say 2 + 2 = 5 just like all these new retarded teachers are teaching kids via Common Core, but that doesn't make it true.
>>713024773
none of them look exactly square to me
> how many badly-drawn approximations of squares are there
>>713034818
Thank you, seems right. You scaled the largest amount up by boundary layers, added and multiplied, or was your method different?
>>713024773
27
The whole thing itself is a square, as well as the four tiny squares that are inside of another 2 squares
>>713033981
You might be a programmer, but you're a shitty logician/mathematician. Yes, you can define whatever the fuck you want in maths, on your every whim, and do calculations or anything else you want/need using those objects. So OP can define squares in any way he wants and you either stick with the definition or jump off the window and do all of us a favor, you pretentious fucktard engineer.
From a mathematician, with love.
>>713035128
Uniformity does not define everything, it is ideal, but not absolute in every scenario.
>>713035128
who is teaching kids 2+2=5
and how does that change how wrong you are
remember - "In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral, which means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles"
thats a sufficient definition, sorry if u need different kinds of squares when you're making your games
>>713035300
preeeecisely
>>713035128
You can say 2+2=5 if you define "+" in a different way or you're working on a set of numbers different from the Naturals, but you might not get a coherent formal system or one that has any application.
Teaching this to kids with no knowledge whatsoever is just stupid though.
Your beloved mathematician, again.
40
>>713033800
Based!!!!
>>713035658
>>713035381
Could you calculate the number here? LOL?
>>713026927
>>713035658
You obviously don't know what Common Core is, and aren't a mathematician.
I'll go ahead and let you delusional kids believe what you want and hope you don't get a job where such knowledge is required in high risk situations.
>>713035658
you are talking shit
40
>>713036227
>High risk situations?
REaLLy???
Do tell, please.
this puzzle is purely intended to make people:
A. think and solve
and/or
/b. troll
answer: people see what they want to see, count whatever the fuck they think looks like a square, given all the boundary lines.
^ there really isn't a definitive answer because of this.
good work, OP...you got people to pick their brains. mission accomplished.
2+2 = 11
>>713037099
9*11=99 (gasp)
>>713037045
Well it does have a definitive answer since the question is "How many squares?" not "How many squares do you see?".
Obviously people are gonna SEE more squares than there are because that's how our brains work.
The answer to the question in OPs image is 17, period.
>>713037099
2+2+2 = 20
32. The image itself is square, it's all drawn in a square and if it can have other lines in it then you can group 4x4 4 times.
>>713037646
Your definition is arbitrary and easily refutable. Since concentric squares are still defined as squares, the existence of other geometric shapes within a geometric shape does not change it's definition, or else concentric squares would not be squares, yet clearly by every definition, they are. So the answer is either 40, or 0 (if you want to get technical and realize that none of the "sqaures" have 4 sides of perfectly equal length. 17 is neither the intended answer nor the anal answer.
>>713038367
>concentric squares
It has nothing to do with the center of the square, it has to do with the sides and whether or not you can form 4 right triangles in the square.
If we go by the absolute definition, it would be 16. If we include the outer square by sides alone, it would be 17.
So the lax answer is 17, and the anal answer is 16.
Also, how is my definition arbitrary?
square; a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.
>>713024773
There is a lot more than most people think.
Going to see if I can count them all.
>>713036227
>and aren't a mathematician.
Actually he is right about the 2+2=5 thing mathematically.
A ⊕ B = A + B + 1
This definition of addition forms a vector space in the real number plane.
40, start summing up the smallest ones, the halves (8), then the 1x1's (18), then the 2x2's (9), then 3x3's (4), then the last 4x4 (1).
8+18+9+1+4 = 40
>>713039675
Then it isn't addition anymore... its a completely different function.
It may include addition but it isn't exclusively addition.
>>713038837
Concentric squares are only an examples of squares that have other lines or shapes within them which can be ignored while defining the square. If concentric squares are still squares then the outer square remains a square regardless of where you place the inner square(whether it is concentric or not). If you look at the gif above and ignore the interior lines within each square, they all have four sides of equal length and four corners with 90 degree angles. I find it implausible that you can't actually understand this so I can only assume you're trolling.
>>713038837
See >>713033800
Every red square has 4 equal length sides and 4 right angles. Other shapes within or parallel to each square do not change it's definition. Stop being obtuse.
start with 1 square the entire size. then squares that are 3x3, of which there are 4,then 2x2 (the main blocks). one in each corner, but don't forget the middle of each side and the very danger. that's 9 total. then the individual smaller (main) blocks, then the inner 2, then their sub divisions. etc. easy peasy.
>>713039910
>>713040371
You can't just ignore boundaries when defining something just because you feel like it.
This reminds me of that ping pong question and this response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_8LFhakQAk
The guy removes the ping pong ball from the equation because of he believes it to be irrelevant yet when the test is done correctly, you get the opposite result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD3hbVG1yxM&t=31s
The answer is 34
>>713039870
Not necessarily. A function and an operator are defined similarly, but there are a few differences. That's aside the point however.
When you define your operators as axioms you can have them be whatever you want them to be. For most of mathematics we define addition and multiplication in such a way that is fits the real world, but theoretical math isn't bound to reality.
>>713024773
the answer is 40
>>713024773
Count 23
>>713040973
No one is ignoring the boundaries that make up the shape, only the additional boundaries of shapes inside and outside the shape which are not a part of the shape, such as the internal square in a set of concentric squares. Just watch the gif and ask yourself on each frame: how many red squares are there? Each square is defined by its four sides and four right angles. Additional lines inside or outside those four boundary walls are irrelevant.
>>713024773
27;
>>713042119
Shit I count 27
>>713024773
36 squares
>>713042660
I was wrong. It's 40.
>>713033981
I'm also a game programmer... and you're fucking retarded.
>>713043240
Cool story, show me some geometric work you've done.
>>713032824
IF YOURE SAYING SQAURES CANT HAVE LINES THROUGH THEM THEN WHY ARE YOU COUNTING THE OUTSIDE SHAPE AS A WHOLE AS A FUCKING SQUARE YOU STUOUD FUCK
>>713043903
Well like I said in an earlier post, I was being lax and allowing it to be counted based on the external 4 equal sides without the right angles and specified it would be 16 otherwise.
Even so, all of those "squares" people are counting have neither the side requirement nor the right angle requirement.
24
>>713024773
16 1x1 aligned
9 2x2 aligned
4 3x3 aligned
1 4x4 aligned
2 2x2 unaligned
8 1x2 unaligned
16 + 9 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 8 = 40
what'd i miss?
>>713044497
*1x1, not 1x2
its 8 the other ones have lines going thru them invalidating them
>>713040973
Both videos get the same result.
>>713044221
No, you said squares can't have lines in them and that's a square with lines in it so fuck off
>>713025428
This is right
>>713033329
You're missing 8 squares. The smallest ones.
>>713044666
...No they don't.
In the incorrect video the balance falls towards the ping pong ball.
In the correct video the balance falls towards the weighted ball.
>>713024773
576,000 of varying colors.
>>713044990
... they both fall towards the weighted ball.
>>713045316
Not sure if trolling.
https://youtu.be/b_8LFhakQAk?t=115
>>713045434
Watch it again idiot.
>>713045434
>>713044990
>>713040973
>>713024773
over 9000
>>713025261
Got it
>>713047305
Which two are missing in this gif?
>>713033800
