Richard Ayoades portrayal on the Graham Linehan produced situational comedy IT Crowd on Channel 4, audible chuckles and nods towards a reference understood.
@@Jay369 That's the same method. It may seem to your mind simpler to lay it out that way but it's the same thing. The contestents mind probably works different from yours - ease is subjective.
@@Jay369 that’s the exact same thing you muppet. Getting 1626 is the difficult part. How you choose to set up the final division by 2 is not what makes this easy or hard.
@@stevecooper7038 Well ...it's maths Jim... But not as we know it! Not as we know it Not as we know it. It's maths Jim. But not as we know it, Not as we know it Vorderman!
My favourite part of the comments is the amazement at the final 2 operations when all the clever stuff happened before that. Getting to 1626 was the hard part.
Carol things the same as you when the says at the end, "That's very clever, this bit particularly" when she points to the workings to get from 65 to 1626.
Yeah I finally saw how this was actually possible after this, he aimed for twice the target and to divide by 2, the last few steps were making it longer than it had to be, he could have done 100/50 to get 2 and then halfed the 1626. Still it's a clever solution.
1:09 - Love hearing Whiteley's sweet and infectious laughter in the background when he realises the contestant genuinely wants Vorderman to merely 'add 1', RIP great man!!
This guy is a phony. When he had 1626, he knew that all he had to do was divide 100 by 50 to get 2, then divide 1626 by 2 to get the answer. But he decided to go the long way just to look good to people who didn't realize. James Martin in 1997 is the real one.
Mike Fuller She only draws penises and acts like a child when on the 'COMEDY' show 8 out of 10 cats does Countdown. That show is just purely a bit of fun with no serious intentions.
I'm not going to pick favourites between Carol and Rachel as I like them both, but I will say that in clips like these, Carol always seems a little rude and condescending towards the contestants, almost like she's getting annoyed with them for being clever. I think Rachel is a little more humble.
The last part (×50, ÷100) is actually just halving it. I think this lad knew his 25 times tables. He probably first doubled the target to get an even number, then searched his 25 times tables to find a number near that. Aha, 1625, it's only 1 away. Do I have a 1? And the 50 and 100 kept in reserve to halve it. I'm not saying I wasn't blown away though!
Could this be the highest number ever reached in pursuit of a successful Countdown calculation? Strikes me that would be an interesting and notable record.
Transit Money Card well no I think she did sort of know. 26 times 5 is 130, so you simply add the appropriate zeroes really. 16 times 5 is 80, add the appropriate zeroes, combine them and yeah he’s right
Tbh it’s not really that hard. If you go for all the large ones all you then do is look for multiple of 10 and 25. Which is what he did. “Right 813 isn’t doable, double it is 1626, that’s one away, I have a 1. Now how many 25s go into 1625?” He could’ve then just divided it by 2, but he wanted to show off and do the whole divide by 100 thing. He made it look more impressive than it was.
Why the hell are these reply chains all arguing about whether Rachel riley or Carol vorderman is better at maths? They're both good and both hot, not much more to it.
The 813 trick uses the same mechanism as the tricks with the numbers close to 937.5. 937.5 is the result of 25 * 75 / 2 or 15/16 of 1,000, and 812.5 is 13/16 of 1,000, meaning that it's 25 * 65 / 2. From there you notice that it's convenient that you have a 10 there to get the 75 to 65, and a 1 there to tap it up before dividing by 2, taking the final result from 812.5 to 813.
Getting to 1626 was the impressive part. He could have just divided 100 by 50 to get 2 and used that to divide 1626. Good going in 30secs though and who doesnt love a bit of showmanship sometimes.
I don't think it was showmanship. His thinking is simpler: For him it was just 1626 x 50/100 That's simpler than 1626 / (100/50). That requires a separate operation before you apply it to the 1626. His way just works left to right. He had 1626, and he had to halve it. He knows that 50/100 is 1/2 but you can't use fractions so you can't put brackets around it. He doesn't need to work out 50 x 1626. He knows that it must be the answer with two zeros. 813 + 00
That was good. But anyone who understands it can see how he put it. He could have simply divided 100 by 50 & then divided 1626 by 2. The real amazing step for me was how he got fo 1626! BONKERS
His method for getting to 1626 is based on the fact that you can make 937.5 with the four large numbers: 75 x 50 x 25 / 100 = 937.5. Now, that looks like it's miles away from the target, but by distributing in the 10 first, he does the equivalent of 75 x 25 - 25 x 10 = 1625, and since he knows that he's going to be doing the equivalent of division by two (50 / 100 = 1 / 2) that it will turn into 937.5 - 125 = 812.5. Now he needs to add something that will be equal to 0.5 when it's divided by two. In other words, he needs a 1 - and he has a 1. So (75 x 25 + 1) x 50 / 100 = 813.
Very clever! He didn't need to multiply by 50 and divide by 100, but it makes it looks all the more impressive! :) ((75-10) x 25) + 1) / (100/50) Amazing work in 30 seconds :D
@@hughmcilveen2235 No he didn't. You can use the numbers you generate by doing operations, he literally did it in his explanation. So he had the choice to do 100/50=2, 1626/2=813.
he used a standard technique for 4 big numbers. by adjusting by small values the following: (25*75)/(100*50)=937.5 you can reach most high numbers alot easier than just using regular intuition, often making your answer more accurate. Nicely done!
@@chrismulhern82 I'm pretty sure he meant to type (100/50). In fact, the 937.5 rule can generally be stated as 75 x 50 x 25 / 100, so you don't have to just use 100 / 50 = 2 but can also use 100 / 25 = 4 and even 75 / 100. The last is the least useful since it only allows you to reach targets that are multiples of 3, but sometimes it's the only solution that works. For example, the problem 100, 75, 50, 25, 7, 5 --> 849 can only be solved in the following way: 50 - 5 = 45 45 x 25 = 1125 1125 + 7 = 1132 1132 x 75 = 84900 84900 / 100 = 849
I was walking into a shopping centre a few weeks back, and out the corner of my eye I saw a lady approaching. So i instinctively stood back and held the door open. When I looked up, I saw carol vordermon smiling at me and saying "thank you" She's so beautiful when you see her up close
@@Rk-xx1sg the final part is the trivial part. Getting 1626 is what’s hard; if she didn’t manage it (which it doesn’t seem she did), that’ll be where she missed out.
There's a similar one where George Ford solves a target of 940 using the four large numbers and 2 and 1 as the small. But still, Countdown doesn't have nearly enough four-large specialists.
@@Nullifidian The thing is that George Ford also went higher than he needed to. You could tell that Rachel had actually solved it when George had got to 1876, she moved to the left of the board expecting him to do 100/50 and then add 2, instead he multiplied by 50, then divided by 100 and added 2.
@@stuartharris2165 So? You're not talking to someone who cares. It's mathematically the same process, obviously, or it couldn't get the same results. That fact is reason enough to let it pass however the person solving it chooses to do it. The important thing is that they knew how to solve it, which is something I suspect most of the people who insist on pulling them up about _how_ they solve it couldn't do themselves.
When I got my wisdom teeth out 3 years ago I discovered this show and spent my time in bed looking up every different clip I could find and this was the only one that stumped me. I probably spent two hours looking at it before giving up. This man's a mad lad for doing it in 30 sec
I got 814 in a few seconds. I did 75+1=76 76x10=760 +50 = 810 and then 100/25=4 for 814. But I wouldn’t have thought of that formula in 30 seconds. I find it more interesting to know what was going on in his head at the time he processed that. It’s something I haven’t learnt very well, but would like to learn.
Did they cut a bit out at 1:08? At one point it sounds like Carol is quietly talking to herself whilst checking 1625 was correct and then you stop hearing it when you see 1625 written on the board.
It's great to see countdown still on TV after all these years Richard Whiteley so many presenters at present colin Murray and also Susie sent and numbers carol and Rachel Riley are great keep going please season 88 I believe wow xxxlol all the best to all ❤❤❤ 2:23
Once he got to 1626 he knew all he had to do was divide by 2. He could get the 2 by 100/50 of course, but a fancier way is multiply by 50 then divide by 100. Knowing the result will be 813 you know the multiply by 50 will give the 81300. Very very clever chap to come up with that in 30 seconds, though of course it's a solid knowledge of his 25 x table.
I got (75+1) * 10 = 760 760 + 50 + (100/25) = 814 and that would almost always be enough to at least share the points. But sometimes you've just got to take your hat off.
It must be great to do maths that quickly in your mind. Sadly something i will never experience but wow. I can make a nice spag bol, have to settle for that!
The way it is shown here makes it way more complicated than it really is. He could have divided 100 by 50 and gotten a 2 which he could have used to divide 1626 with.
The key to this is doubling the number to get an even number. Obviously this works with any number. I suspect there are a few other keys to doing large calculations like this. All in the preparation.
To the people who said Carol shouldnt just take his word for it on 1626 x 50, I'm sure that was in jest. It's not a hard one to quickly work out: 6x50 is 300, 20 x 50 is a 1000, 1600 x 50 is 80000, add them all together.
The rules are that you may use as many or as few of the six given numbers as you need. Since CECIL's target generator goes as low as 100, that in principle means that you could have a single step game, where one just notes the presence of the 100 tile. I don't know if it's ever happened on the proper _Countdown_ but it has on _8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown_ . You can use only the four basic arithmetical operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. There are no squares or roots or anything like that permitted. (Though for comedy value, Richard Ayoade on _Catsdown_ did once use powers to solve for 950 in a six-small game that was unsolvable according to the rules.) You can only use each number as many times as it appears in the selection. So all the large numbers (25, 50, 75, 100) can only be used once because they only have one tile each, but you might be able to use two of the same smaller numbers if they're both in the selection (1 - 10-each number is present on two tiles). Thus there are 24 titles in total, and you may choose any selection of six: six small, one large, two large, three large, or four large. Some of these selections have different names, like a "Whitehall" selection is 1 from the top, followed by 2 from the next row, 1 from the next row, and 2 from the next row, resulting in 1 large (Whitehall 1212 was the former phone number of Scotland Yard). An "inverted T" is another one-large game where it makes an upside-down T pattern. A "Motown" selection is a four-large game, because it gives you the Four Tops. Every step of the solution must result in a whole number and there's no rounding up or down. That's why Jon had to add by 1 to make it an even number before essentially dividing by 2 (50 / 100 being 1 / 2). These are pretty much the only rules you need to worry about, and the others are just common sense, like you can't make targets by the concatenation of numbers. If there's a 9 5 and 2 in the selection and the target is 259 you can't just place the numbers in the right order and say you've got the target.
13 is kinda close to 12.5 (100/8) There's a 1, so if I double 813 and subtract 1, it'll be like subtracting 0.5. I can get 2 by 50/25 or 100/50, so I'll figure out which later. From that I get 1625. (8*2=16, 13*2=26, 26-1=25) That ends with 625 (25^2), it's definitely a multiple of 25. 1625/25=65. (625/25=25, 1000/25=40) I have a 75 and a 10, I can make that! Now to reverse. 75-10=65, 65*25=1625, 1625+1=1626, 1626*50/100=813.
The title of this video is totally misleading. I was expecting Carol to do something impressive here. This video really has nothing to do with her, and in fact she seems a little rude and condescending towards the contestant in this video.
I think it was nervous laughter (she was concerned that he was going to make a fool of himself) and also she was laughing out of sheer incredulity (something most of us do) when the numbers were going completely out of the ball park. I imagine (though I could be wrong) that it is very unlikely she has seen a calculation on the show go to such an astronomically high number during the calculation.
1626x50 being mysterious to Carol shows why she's hugely inferior to Rachel and even most number-literate people. The fact that x50 is /2 and add a couple of 0s shouldn't be difficult for anyone who's supposedly good at maths.
@@qwertyTRiG He kinda made it more complicated, he could have done (100/50) to get a 2 and divide the 1626 by that but he knew that by multiplying by 50 then dividing by 100, he'd get the same answer, kinda impressive but the long numbers were unnecessary.
The first part was, the 2nd part was just a long way of dividing by 2, by x100 and /50, which is possible by just doing 100/50 to get 2 and dividing the number by 2. Basically just showing off unnecessarily, but still impressive with limited numbers
Well he didnt need to know what 1626 times 50 was, he simply needed to know 1626 was twice 813 which was the goal number. Thus is becuase timesing 1626 by 50 then dividing by 100 is equivalent to dividing 1626 by 2.
He's on his way to winning that countdown teapot.
No offence, Jeremy
@@shaitam5v *Jeremy looks suspicious*
😆
Good morning, that's a nice Tnetennba!
My approach is generally "10x75 = 750, +50 = 800. Eh, close enough"
100/25+1 for 805 nah?
I just added the 1 to that and called it a day
I did 10 x (75 +1) = 760 + 50 = 810 + (100 ÷ 25) = 814.
Plus a bonus point for using all the numbers, which I take off 814 to get 813. 😇 😄
But no points for you sunshine.
@@georgielancaster1356 you used 1 twice, still a lot better than me though
Good morning, that's a nice tnetennba.
Moss on The IT Crowd lol
Richard Ayoades portrayal on the Graham Linehan produced situational comedy IT Crowd on Channel 4, audible chuckles and nods towards a reference understood.
That fully made me laugh so hard
You're a hero :D:D:D:D
I'm disabled
It’s mind boggling how in the space of 30 seconds he ruled out any easy way of doing it, and then managed to get it the way he did.
What's the "easy" way?
@@ThomasBomb45
75-10=65
65×25=1625
1625+1=1626*
100÷50=2*
1626/2=813
@@Jay369 That's the same method. It may seem to your mind simpler to lay it out that way but it's the same thing. The contestents mind probably works different from yours - ease is subjective.
@@pocky1scot1
Ease is relative
@@Jay369 that’s the exact same thing you muppet. Getting 1626 is the difficult part. How you choose to set up the final division by 2 is not what makes this easy or hard.
Doing this kind of maths is impressive at the best of times but doing this kind of maths within the 30 seconds is just crazy!
Lol exactly to funny but I love it
True...
That's exactly what twice-nightly Whitely said
I miss Richard Whitely so much. Great presenter.
Brilliantly done young man.
It's worse than that, he's dead Jim.
Dooo doo dooo dooo duh duh duh duh *beeeeep*
@@stevecooper7038
Well ...it's maths Jim...
But not as we know it!
Not as we know it
Not as we know it.
It's maths Jim.
But not as we know it,
Not as we know it Vorderman!
I grew up with him presenting the local news "Calendar" and he was a great Yorkshireman, well admired.
My childhood memories will be forever liked to Richard Whiteley as the presenter of Countdown.
1:09 I love the almost disbelief and "are you serious?!" tone from Carol... "Add 1".
OMG! Where are you going with this?
She knew after that he was just showing off. She could see that 1626 was double 813.
My favourite part of the comments is the amazement at the final 2 operations when all the clever stuff happened before that. Getting to 1626 was the hard part.
Carol things the same as you when the says at the end, "That's very clever, this bit particularly" when she points to the workings to get from 65 to 1626.
She does mention it and points at the work saying this bits clever
It was a little showboating on last part. 100/50 =2 and so 1626 / 2 = 813 also. Fair play tho. Nice 10 points.
Some people can think of that easier the way he did It bigger numbers are easier to work with
No, he could not use the number 2, remember. No showboating. Brilliant.
@@hughmcilveen2235 dividing by 2 would not have been showboating!!
@@hughmcilveen2235 if he gets the two by dividing the 100 by 50, he is allowed. So yes, he was showboating lol
Yeah I finally saw how this was actually possible after this, he aimed for twice the target and to divide by 2, the last few steps were making it longer than it had to be, he could have done 100/50 to get 2 and then halfed the 1626. Still it's a clever solution.
1:09 - Love hearing Whiteley's sweet and infectious laughter in the background when he realises the contestant genuinely wants Vorderman to merely 'add 1', RIP great man!!
I love Carol. She will always be the Countdown Queen in my eyes.
If I'd taken all week I'd not have managed this. All credit deserved and taken by the lad.
This guy is a phony. When he had 1626, he knew that all he had to do was divide 100 by 50 to get 2, then divide 1626 by 2 to get the answer. But he decided to go the long way just to look good to people who didn't realize. James Martin in 1997 is the real one.
This is what they call "Thinking outside the box". Even Carol Vorderman was impressed. And that's a great complement..
And that's numberwang
Das ist Nümberwang!
Yes! That is a Number!
sorry that was actually wangernumb
@Oscar Brown, 😂 yes!
Rachel Riley would have Been able to solve that
You got 824.
Mike Fuller She only draws penises and acts like a child when on the 'COMEDY' show 8 out of 10 cats does Countdown. That show is just purely a bit of fun with no serious intentions.
OK! Fair enough!
I'm not going to pick favourites between Carol and Rachel as I like them both, but I will say that in clips like these, Carol always seems a little rude and condescending towards the contestants, almost like she's getting annoyed with them for being clever. I think Rachel is a little more humble.
Rachel Riley's the one that's rude. I went off her very early on because of her agist comments.
The last part (×50, ÷100) is actually just halving it. I think this lad knew his 25 times tables.
He probably first doubled the target to get an even number, then searched his 25 times tables to find a number near that. Aha, 1625, it's only 1 away. Do I have a 1? And the 50 and 100 kept in reserve to halve it.
I'm not saying I wasn't blown away though!
👍👏👏👏
You've got to think of it first. You can't just come in late, dissect it and say it's easy. That would likely be
seen as foolish, even egotistical.
@@arconeagain maybe he doesnt know his 25 times tables but his 5 times tables very well 🤔
I mean you see a 25, you look for multiples of 25, find 1624, add one, and then figure out if 25 divides into one of your numbers
They write all of the times tables down in front of them in advance which helps.
I mean... it's an impressive video,
but the title seems to credit the wrong person.
All she did was write it down.
clickbait
The bit where he adds the 1 just tops it off.
Could this be the highest number ever reached in pursuit of a successful Countdown calculation? Strikes me that would be an interesting and notable record.
th-cam.com/video/pfa3MHLLSWI/w-d-xo.html
I am sure numbers like 1000 or 950 have been reached easier
@@allylilith5605I think they’re referring to the calculations getting into the 81,300 range
@@MikeTaffet oh fair point actually
th-cam.com/video/0q6PT4ad6BY/w-d-xo.html.
Why is her name in the title when she’s just gonna take his word on the maths🙄
Rachel wouldve know that.
Transit Money Card well no I think she did sort of know. 26 times 5 is 130, so you simply add the appropriate zeroes really. 16 times 5 is 80, add the appropriate zeroes, combine them and yeah he’s right
@@jamiengo2343 I mean she was literally saying she was taking his word for it...
Tiger474 it was more something you say instinctively, you know, when you’re doing something quickly and someone says something and you just respond
1626 * 100 = 162600 therefore 1626 * 50 = 1/2 or 81300 / 100 = 813
Can’t Believe it took him 30 seconds, I mean it’s right there...
Exactly. I did it b4 the numbers came up...
@@Isleofskye same LOOOOOOL
@@CHANtotheDAN :)
@@Isleofskye ;O
Knowing his 8x table, clever!
8x8 = 64
1/8 = 0.125
Using the 1 before dividing by 2 (100/50) to bring it up from 812.5 to 813
Very clever
At the end of the day he still achieved it in 30 secs, everyone here has hind sight
Nothing better than getting it done in 30 seconds eh.
i couldnt do it in 30 seconds even though i just watched him do it in 30 seconds.. lmao
Tbh it’s not really that hard. If you go for all the large ones all you then do is look for multiple of 10 and 25. Which is what he did. “Right 813 isn’t doable, double it is 1626, that’s one away, I have a 1. Now how many 25s go into 1625?” He could’ve then just divided it by 2, but he wanted to show off and do the whole divide by 100 thing. He made it look more impressive than it was.
Why the hell are these reply chains all arguing about whether Rachel riley or Carol vorderman is better at maths? They're both good and both hot, not much more to it.
Rachel Riley is better
@@TheNuclearBolton are you still talking about maths?
@@pjcamp1on yes, why? I think women who can do basic arithmetic in their heads are the bees knees.
Carol's better at funeral advertisements. But Rachel might be in 30 years.
i like the fit Jewish one.
We still miss you Richard. R.I.P. 😢😊👌🏴
The 813 trick uses the same mechanism as the tricks with the numbers close to 937.5.
937.5 is the result of 25 * 75 / 2 or 15/16 of 1,000, and 812.5 is 13/16 of 1,000, meaning that it's 25 * 65 / 2.
From there you notice that it's convenient that you have a 10 there to get the 75 to 65, and a 1 there to tap it up before dividing by 2, taking the final result from 812.5 to 813.
Getting to 1626 was the impressive part. He could have just divided 100 by 50 to get 2 and used that to divide 1626. Good going in 30secs though and who doesnt love a bit of showmanship sometimes.
I'm pretty he knows. But for the lulz it's funnier to do *50 first
He did. Kind of.
I don't think it was showmanship. His thinking is simpler: For him it was just
1626 x 50/100
That's simpler than 1626 / (100/50). That requires a separate operation before you apply it to the 1626. His way just works left to right.
He had 1626, and he had to halve it. He knows that 50/100 is 1/2 but you can't use fractions so you can't put brackets around it. He doesn't need to work out 50 x 1626. He knows that it must be the answer with two zeros. 813 + 00
81,300 must be the highest solution in Countdown history!
Now this was the proper Countdown with Carol Voderman and the late Richard Whiteley.
I remember watching this show with my Grandad when I visited England growing up.
Episode 4051 (3200 shows later was on the 1st episode of 2019).
Brilliant!
This guy came on as a guest team member on Cats Does Countdown one time.
All I got was Tnetennba.....
Racist
@@rossmarshall6960 no
The title of the video suggests Vorderman did this calculation.
"It's very clever, this bit particularly" *gestures at entire calculation*
She meant the +1
Probably maths now. Love it
That was good. But anyone who understands it can see how he put it. He could have simply divided 100 by 50 & then divided 1626 by 2. The real amazing step for me was how he got fo 1626! BONKERS
His method for getting to 1626 is based on the fact that you can make 937.5 with the four large numbers: 75 x 50 x 25 / 100 = 937.5. Now, that looks like it's miles away from the target, but by distributing in the 10 first, he does the equivalent of 75 x 25 - 25 x 10 = 1625, and since he knows that he's going to be doing the equivalent of division by two (50 / 100 = 1 / 2) that it will turn into 937.5 - 125 = 812.5. Now he needs to add something that will be equal to 0.5 when it's divided by two. In other words, he needs a 1 - and he has a 1. So (75 x 25 + 1) x 50 / 100 = 813.
Thanks captain obvious.
Very clever! He didn't need to multiply by 50 and divide by 100, but it makes it looks all the more impressive! :)
((75-10) x 25) + 1) / (100/50)
Amazing work in 30 seconds :D
AT the start of the equation would have 3 brackets not 2
No, he had to divide that way. He can only use the numbers on the board.
@@hughmcilveen2235 if that is the case, he couldn't have done the multiplication either since 65 is not on the board either!!
@Justin My comment was only directed to Hugh and referenced his 2nd sentence. Please read it and tell me what you think it says.
@@hughmcilveen2235 No he didn't. You can use the numbers you generate by doing operations, he literally did it in his explanation. So he had the choice to do 100/50=2, 1626/2=813.
he used a standard technique for 4 big numbers. by adjusting by small values the following: (25*75)/(100*50)=937.5 you can reach most high numbers alot easier than just using regular intuition, often making your answer more accurate. Nicely done!
25x75=1875
and 50x100=5000
So how do you get to 937.5 ?
@@chrismulhern82 I'm pretty sure he meant to type (100/50).
In fact, the 937.5 rule can generally be stated as 75 x 50 x 25 / 100, so you don't have to just use 100 / 50 = 2 but can also use 100 / 25 = 4 and even 75 / 100. The last is the least useful since it only allows you to reach targets that are multiples of 3, but sometimes it's the only solution that works.
For example, the problem 100, 75, 50, 25, 7, 5 --> 849 can only be solved in the following way:
50 - 5 = 45
45 x 25 = 1125
1125 + 7 = 1132
1132 x 75 = 84900
84900 / 100 = 849
The Australian queen of numbers Lily Serna (Letters and Numbers, SBS tv) has done that a few times and it never gets boring.
Thats absolutely fucking mental that he took 30 seconds to work that out
I paused this for 5 mins, still nowhere near, pretty impressive
"What do you want to study at Cambridge?"
"Cocktail sticks!"
I was walking into a shopping centre a few weeks back, and out the corner of my eye I saw a lady approaching. So i instinctively stood back and held the door open. When I looked up, I saw carol vordermon smiling at me and saying "thank you"
She's so beautiful when you see her up close
Carol's gone, Richard's gone (RIP) and Susie thankfully is still there, being as clever, nice and beautiful as always.
Susie now does a podcast called Something rhymes with purple.
@@FanofAslan Yes! I’m a regular listener, plus she has a new book “Word Perfect” which is fantastic.
What was impressive was that Vorderman clearly hadn't done it!
she did it by dividing 1626/2 most likely
@@Rk-xx1sg the final part is the trivial part. Getting 1626 is what’s hard; if she didn’t manage it (which it doesn’t seem she did), that’ll be where she missed out.
@@ViceroyoftheDiptera okay
@@Rk-xx1sg 1626/2 is definitely out of Carol's range. She's not that good. Rachel maybe could've got it
that is superb. any more of those?
I thought I did well with 811. Then I realised that was with several minutes and not only did he beat me, he did in the spotlight and in 30 seconds
we have heard of divide and conquer but this is an perfect sample of multipy and attack!
I bet he’s a master of street countdown
That's probably the most amazing numbers win I have ever seen on Countdown... ever!
Nah there's one better than this
There's a similar one where George Ford solves a target of 940 using the four large numbers and 2 and 1 as the small. But still, Countdown doesn't have nearly enough four-large specialists.
@@Nullifidian The thing is that George Ford also went higher than he needed to. You could tell that Rachel had actually solved it when George had got to 1876, she moved to the left of the board expecting him to do 100/50 and then add 2, instead he multiplied by 50, then divided by 100 and added 2.
@@stuartharris2165 So? You're not talking to someone who cares. It's mathematically the same process, obviously, or it couldn't get the same results. That fact is reason enough to let it pass however the person solving it chooses to do it. The important thing is that they knew how to solve it, which is something I suspect most of the people who insist on pulling them up about _how_ they solve it couldn't do themselves.
Lol, I got this one, but not within the 30 seconds... This guy is too good.
When I got my wisdom teeth out 3 years ago I discovered this show and spent my time in bed looking up every different clip I could find and this was the only one that stumped me. I probably spent two hours looking at it before giving up. This man's a mad lad for doing it in 30 sec
30 seconds. Bloody hell. It would have taken me two years to figure out !!!
Your comment was 6 years ago and I am still not quite there yet/...
I got 814 in a few seconds. I did 75+1=76 76x10=760 +50 = 810 and then 100/25=4 for 814. But I wouldn’t have thought of that formula in 30 seconds. I find it more interesting to know what was going on in his head at the time he processed that. It’s something I haven’t learnt very well, but would like to learn.
Did they cut a bit out at 1:08? At one point it sounds like Carol is quietly talking to herself whilst checking 1625 was correct and then you stop hearing it when you see 1625 written on the board.
Good catch!
According to the guy himself, they did, they had to let her use her calculator!
Peter Clarke she was doing the the sum in her head to see if it was the correct answer it's obvious
Peter Clarke 'm
It's great to see countdown still on TV after all these years Richard Whiteley so many presenters at present colin Murray and also Susie sent and numbers carol and Rachel Riley are great keep going please season 88 I believe wow xxxlol all the best to all ❤❤❤ 2:23
75 + 1 = 76
76 x 10 = 760
75/25 = 3
760 + 50 + 3 = 813
Good but you used 75 twice
The 1626 is really clever. The × 50 / 100 is just for fun we can divide by (100/50)...
Once he got to 1626 he knew all he had to do was divide by 2. He could get the 2 by 100/50 of course, but a fancier way is multiply by 50 then divide by 100.
Knowing the result will be 813 you know the multiply by 50 will give the 81300.
Very very clever chap to come up with that in 30 seconds, though of course it's a solid knowledge of his 25 x table.
For all the Math experts who have commented. This guy only had 30 seconds, I can't manage to get out of bed in 30 seconds.
He had no reason to go up so high, when you get to 1626, you only needed to say 1626/(100/50).
ye I thought that too. it was uneccesary to go that high
He had a reason - to show off. Whether you personally think that's a legit reason or not though...
there is also no reason not to go so high.
Show boat, yes, but fun to watch
He didn't need to that high, but it made great television! 😉
Love these !! 👍👍🙂🖖🇺🇸
Admit it or not, John is brilliant!
Hello am i allowed to upscale this footage to 720P?
Nervous laughter from Carol indicating that she cant keep up.
I love Carol but unlike Rachel she never could keep up.
Saw her asked an easy maths question on Would I Lie To You and she could not answer it !
I got
(75+1) * 10 = 760
760 + 50 + (100/25) = 814
and that would almost always be enough to at least share the points. But sometimes you've just got to take your hat off.
I've done exactly the same in under 30s. But no way I'd find the 65×25+1 of his in that timeframe.
It must be great to do maths that quickly in your mind. Sadly something i will never experience but wow. I can make a nice spag bol, have to settle for that!
0:00 you recorded that with a tiVo box?
His first step was recognising 813 as a prime. So to get it he was going big. That's where his genius takes over and wins Carol's admiration.
813 is divisible by 3?
@@keiramistry5305 it absolutely is! Never let me on countdown - I can't comment correctly inside 30 seconds let alone solve.
@@johnmcdonough955 haha, the trick to finding if it is divisible by 3 is if all the digits add to a multiple of 3, pretty neat!
@@keiramistry5305 I hadn't realised the trick but I know now. Cheers!
271 x 3, u been drinking to much Prime?
Amazing! Does anyone know what this gifted man is doing nowadays?
selling toilet brushes
Wanking profusely, I'd imagine
He's running a business that employs Pat Henry and Rici Underwood
I believe he topped himself after attempting to teach Diane Abbott the 10 X Table.
I'm a guy who's very good with numbers, like him. Unfortunately a loser in pretty much every aspect of life; can't rule out that possibility for him
The way it is shown here makes it way more complicated than it really is. He could have divided 100 by 50 and gotten a 2 which he could have used to divide 1626 with.
He knew that of course. In modern lingo, it's what they call a flex, i.e. showing off.
You can tell she's pissed, for him getting it, when she couldn't.
What a legend!
Did he end up studying Maths at Cambridge? where is he now?
I got 211
LMAO 211 LIKES IM CRYING
@@namxxn yes crazy
The key to this is doubling the number to get an even number. Obviously this works with any number. I suspect there are a few other keys to doing large calculations like this. All in the preparation.
Mind boggling....even Carol gave up on his calculations !
Lol. That's the first thing I noticed too. I'll take your word for it on this.
To the people who said Carol shouldnt just take his word for it on 1626 x 50, I'm sure that was in jest. It's not a hard one to quickly work out: 6x50 is 300, 20 x 50 is a 1000, 1600 x 50 is 80000, add them all together.
Or just halve it, 1626/2 = 813 That's essentially what he did anyway
Or just multiply 1626 x 100 = 162600 and then divide by 2, 81300
Where’s this guy now?
He’ll be alright at homeschooling...
Misleading title. She's showing the contestant's working out.
Dianne abbot can up with 23,456,985
she's Rachel Riley's stand-in
Lol
LOL. Pritti Vacant, oops sorry Patel, got 197, 034 853 145, which was close enough for her.
What are the rules? Do you have to use all the numbers?
The rules are that you may use as many or as few of the six given numbers as you need. Since CECIL's target generator goes as low as 100, that in principle means that you could have a single step game, where one just notes the presence of the 100 tile. I don't know if it's ever happened on the proper _Countdown_ but it has on _8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown_ .
You can use only the four basic arithmetical operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. There are no squares or roots or anything like that permitted. (Though for comedy value, Richard Ayoade on _Catsdown_ did once use powers to solve for 950 in a six-small game that was unsolvable according to the rules.)
You can only use each number as many times as it appears in the selection. So all the large numbers (25, 50, 75, 100) can only be used once because they only have one tile each, but you might be able to use two of the same smaller numbers if they're both in the selection (1 - 10-each number is present on two tiles). Thus there are 24 titles in total, and you may choose any selection of six: six small, one large, two large, three large, or four large. Some of these selections have different names, like a "Whitehall" selection is 1 from the top, followed by 2 from the next row, 1 from the next row, and 2 from the next row, resulting in 1 large (Whitehall 1212 was the former phone number of Scotland Yard). An "inverted T" is another one-large game where it makes an upside-down T pattern. A "Motown" selection is a four-large game, because it gives you the Four Tops.
Every step of the solution must result in a whole number and there's no rounding up or down. That's why Jon had to add by 1 to make it an even number before essentially dividing by 2 (50 / 100 being 1 / 2).
These are pretty much the only rules you need to worry about, and the others are just common sense, like you can't make targets by the concatenation of numbers. If there's a 9 5 and 2 in the selection and the target is 259 you can't just place the numbers in the right order and say you've got the target.
13 is kinda close to 12.5 (100/8)
There's a 1, so if I double 813 and subtract 1, it'll be like subtracting 0.5.
I can get 2 by 50/25 or 100/50, so I'll figure out which later.
From that I get 1625. (8*2=16, 13*2=26, 26-1=25)
That ends with 625 (25^2), it's definitely a multiple of 25.
1625/25=65. (625/25=25, 1000/25=40)
I have a 75 and a 10, I can make that! Now to reverse.
75-10=65, 65*25=1625, 1625+1=1626, 1626*50/100=813.
The question is did you do it in 30 seconds while on TV?
I love Carol's laugh as she knew she felt outsmarted
The title of this video is totally misleading. I was expecting Carol to do something impressive here. This video really has nothing to do with her, and in fact she seems a little rude and condescending towards the contestant in this video.
I think it was nervous laughter (she was concerned that he was going to make a fool of himself) and also she was laughing out of sheer incredulity (something most of us do) when the numbers were going completely out of the ball park. I imagine (though I could be wrong) that it is very unlikely she has seen a calculation on the show go to such an astronomically high number during the calculation.
Where is this guy now I wonder?
1626x50 being mysterious to Carol shows why she's hugely inferior to Rachel and even most number-literate people. The fact that x50 is /2 and add a couple of 0s shouldn't be difficult for anyone who's supposedly good at maths.
TH-cam Recommendation Roulette favours me tonight, it seems.
I thought Carol Vorderman was going to solve it, i didn't want to listen to him showing off. The title is misleading frankly!
Performing the challenge you're set on a game show is not "showing off".
@@qwertyTRiG He kinda made it more complicated, he could have done (100/50) to get a 2 and divide the 1626 by that but he knew that by multiplying by 50 then dividing by 100, he'd get the same answer, kinda impressive but the long numbers were unnecessary.
@@qwertyTRiG It's very clever, but you can't tell me that he's not trying to impress Carol. It's showing off, they both know it and are enjoying it.
Countdown showboating love it
Frigging unreal how he worked that out
The first part was, the 2nd part was just a long way of dividing by 2, by x100 and /50, which is possible by just doing 100/50 to get 2 and dividing the number by 2. Basically just showing off unnecessarily, but still impressive with limited numbers
1:48 Is that the Cherno?
By my calculation, Carol would fucking get it.
Carol wasn't good enough for huge numbers. Look at the 952 video, she's overwhelmed. Rachel would have had more of a shot
I got 814 and am relatively proud of that, but this is incredible!
1:22 What a show-off! LMAO
Well he didnt need to know what 1626 times 50 was, he simply needed to know 1626 was twice 813 which was the goal number. Thus is becuase timesing 1626 by 50 then dividing by 100 is equivalent to dividing 1626 by 2.
@@yatoproductions163 1 times 50 is 50 and if you divided 50 by 100 it's 0.05 which is the same as dividing 1 by 2
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT
Damn I would have only got 814... 813 that's clever!
Me too. I thought I was good getting that in the 30 seconds 🙂
Just watched this when i woke up... going back to sleep.
Dream well
I can do that too. Don't ask for proof, just do the smart thing and take my word for it.
LorrdFfuzyLogik it's not exactly the hardest of maths lol
I have something hard to show you. ;)