  # Of Math and Manischewitz

## Discussion Forum

###### back to all forums

Surround spoilers with **

On March 24, 2023 at 4:25PM EST Magicpuzzles wrote:

I got the answer (69 - 46) × 29 ÷ ((99 - 58) × (93 - 62)) but it’s not accepting it. What did I do wrong

On January 13, 2023 at 4:26PM EST EMC2 responded to Just-A:

Well, the term "equation" does by definition imply two sides, but either way did you notice the URL at the bottom of the theorem? If you go there, the theorem exists online in interactive form. And it explains the rules in more detail and will tell you when you get it right or not.

On January 12, 2023 at 4:55PM EST Just-A responded to EMC2:

So I saw, and I disagree. "Make an equation resulting in 667/1271" does not mean make a double-sided equation using the 9 cards below where each side equals 667/1271. The alternative solution provided below is an equation resulting in 667/1271. If you've played Proof! before, the intent of this puzzle may have been obvious but given that it isn't a game commonly found in living rooms, further clarity on what was expected would go a long way.

On January 12, 2023 at 4:00PM EST EMC2 responded to Just-A:

Like I said below to @Adventurik, the definition of an equation is "a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal", so you have to create both sides of the equation (two expressions) using only the 9 cards. So you need to make two separate 667/1271's (like a pair, or match), which according to the Proof website is how the game is played. Personally I loved this one

On January 12, 2023 at 3:51PM EST Just-A wrote:

The puzzle does not state “make an equation using the cards below with each side equaling 667/1271”.

It states “make an equation resulting in 667/1271”.

The answer is ((29*(69-46))/((41*(93-62)). The solution provided in the book is for a different question, and not the one that was asked.

On January 12, 2023 at 4:55PM EST Just-A responded to EMC2:

So I saw, and I disagree. "Make an equation resulting in 667/1271" does not mean make a double-sided equation using the 9 cards below where each side equals 667/1271. The alternative solution provided below is an equation resulting in 667/1271. If you've played Proof! before, the intent of this puzzle may have been obvious but given that it isn't a game commonly found in living rooms, further clarity on what was expected would go a long way.

On January 12, 2023 at 4:00PM EST EMC2 responded to Just-A:

Like I said below to @Adventurik, the definition of an equation is "a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal", so you have to create both sides of the equation (two expressions) using only the 9 cards. So you need to make two separate 667/1271's (like a pair, or match), which according to the Proof website is how the game is played. Personally I loved this one

On January 12, 2023 at 3:51PM EST Just-A wrote:

The puzzle does not state “make an equation using the cards below with each side equaling 667/1271”.

It states “make an equation resulting in 667/1271”.

The answer is ((29*(69-46))/((41*(93-62)). The solution provided in the book is for a different question, and not the one that was asked.

On January 12, 2023 at 4:00PM EST EMC2 responded to Just-A:

Like I said below to @Adventurik, the definition of an equation is "a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal", so you have to create both sides of the equation (two expressions) using only the 9 cards. So you need to make two separate 667/1271's (like a pair, or match), which according to the Proof website is how the game is played. Personally I loved this one

On January 12, 2023 at 3:51PM EST Just-A wrote:

The puzzle does not state “make an equation using the cards below with each side equaling 667/1271”.

It states “make an equation resulting in 667/1271”.

The answer is ((29*(69-46))/((41*(93-62)). The solution provided in the book is for a different question, and not the one that was asked.

On January 12, 2023 at 3:51PM EST Just-A wrote:

The puzzle does not state “make an equation using the cards below with each side equaling 667/1271”.

It states “make an equation resulting in 667/1271”.

The answer is ((29*(69-46))/((41*(93-62)). The solution provided in the book is for a different question, and not the one that was asked.

On September 25, 2022 at 2:25PM EST EMC2 responded to Adventurik:

You have to create both sides of the equation using only the 9 cards, so you can't have 667/1271 on one side like that. So really, you have to make 667/1271 twice, and set those two things equal to each other to make the equation.

On September 25, 2022 at 2:04PM EST Adventurik wrote:

The solution I came up with is (29x(69-46)/(41x(93-62))=667/1271. It is a true equation, but I don't understand why it's not accepted.

On September 25, 2022 at 2:04PM EST Adventurik wrote:

The solution I came up with is (29x(69-46)/(41x(93-62))=667/1271. It is a true equation, but I don't understand why it's not accepted.

On August 15, 2021 at 12:57AM EST prairie_guy wrote:

Got the answer, but struggled with formatting to get it accepted by checker

On May 27, 2021 at 1:58PM EST chilludio wrote:

This puzzle is a prime example of some good math

On January 31, 2021 at 3:04PM EST Gneen wrote:

Using * for multiplication rather than x worked fine for me - I assumed left to right math without parentheses rather than standard math precedence order although with only multiplication and division it didn't matter. Several different solutions with the same numbers will work, although I didn't try them all on the website.

On January 31, 2021 at 11:28AM EST PotassiumIsImportant wrote:

I definitely misunderstood the challenge. I wrote one long equation that equaled 667/1271. Instead of two equations that equal each other and both equal the desired number. Didn't realize my mistake until I tried to type a square root symbol into the solution.

On June 22, 2020 at 1:02AM EST Gorgo responded to EMC2:

Okay, I figured out my 'mistake'; I was using the actual multiplication symbol (×), instead of the required lower case x. In my view, either should be acceptable, but that's for M to decide.

On June 21, 2020 at 2:44PM EST EMC2 responded to Gorgo:

What's the equation you're trying to type in? Seems to work for me when I type [warning: full spoiler] (29/41)x(46/62)=(58/82)x(69/93). But I've tried a few different formats and equations and they all seem to work.

On June 21, 2020 at 12:28PM EST Gorgo wrote:

I came up with a correct solution which I confirmed with the answer in the back of the book. However, I've tried several formats of my equasion in the answer space on this site (including the ones in the explanation and the illustration), but nothing is accepted as correct. What's the proper format?

On June 21, 2020 at 2:44PM EST EMC2 responded to Gorgo:

What's the equation you're trying to type in? Seems to work for me when I type [warning: full spoiler] (29/41)x(46/62)=(58/82)x(69/93). But I've tried a few different formats and equations and they all seem to work.

On June 21, 2020 at 12:28PM EST Gorgo wrote:

I came up with a correct solution which I confirmed with the answer in the back of the book. However, I've tried several formats of my equasion in the answer space on this site (including the ones in the explanation and the illustration), but nothing is accepted as correct. What's the proper format?

On June 21, 2020 at 12:28PM EST Gorgo wrote:

I came up with a correct solution which I confirmed with the answer in the back of the book. However, I've tried several formats of my equasion in the answer space on this site (including the ones in the explanation and the illustration), but nothing is accepted as correct. What's the proper format?  