Richard Ayoades portrayal on the Graham Linehan produced situational comedy IT Crowd on Channel 4, audible chuckles and nods towards a reference understood.
He first doubles 813 in his head to get 1626 and recognises that is 1 away from a multiple of 25. And he knows how to quickly work out multiples of 25, so quickly realises he needs 65 of them. The rest snaps into place for him. Impressive.
He also knows before he chooses that 4 of the numbers will be 25,50,75,100 ...you can work off these alone to know all the variants...he also knows before that the 2 other numbers are between 1 and 10...its clever...he does his homework
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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!
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
@@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.
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
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 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.
I know right. 1626 x 50 is very easy to do in your head. Just do 1626 x 100 which is simple, just add two 0's. Then cut it in half. What is so hard lady?
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.
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.
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
If you think she didn't already know how he would finish it when he said multiply by 50, you've clearly not seen much of Carol Vorderman. She knows he's right, and that the next thing he is going to do is divide by 100 because she can already see the simple solution of 100/50=2, 1626/2 = 813. Therefore, (1626*50)/100 is also 813, it's the same operation as before just rearranged, that's how maths works. She knows that he is correct because if the final answer is 813 and all he has left is 100, so he's clearly going be dividing by it, so 1626*50 must be 81,300.
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
He's on his way to winning that countdown teapot.
No offence, Jeremy
@@shaitam5v *Jeremy looks suspicious*
😆
Good morning, that's a nice Tnetennba!
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
He first doubles 813 in his head to get 1626 and recognises that is 1 away from a multiple of 25. And he knows how to quickly work out multiples of 25, so quickly realises he needs 65 of them. The rest snaps into place for him. Impressive.
Very help, thank you
@@JohnnyBravo1878 welcome
It's really neat the solutions you can come up with some clever math like that
He also knows before he chooses that 4 of the numbers will be 25,50,75,100 ...you can work off these alone to know all the variants...he also knows before that the 2 other numbers are between 1 and 10...its clever...he does his homework
@@Everton-Valley-2005 Yes, indeed.
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
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.
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.
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
1:09 I love the almost disbelief and "are you serious?!" tone from Carol... "Add 1".
OMG! Where are you going with this?
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!
And that's numberwang
Das ist Nümberwang!
Yes! That is a Number!
sorry that was actually wangernumb
@Oscar Brown, 😂 yes!
The bit where he adds the 1 just tops it off.
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.
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.
I love Carol. She will always be the Countdown Queen in my eyes.
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
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
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.
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.
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
This is what they call "Thinking outside the box". Even Carol Vorderman was impressed. And that's a great complement..
Probably maths now. Love it
All I got was Tnetennba.....
Racist
@@rossmarshall6960 no
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
"It's very clever, this bit particularly" *gestures at entire calculation*
She meant the +1
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. 😢😊👌🏴
This guy came on as a guest team member on Cats Does Countdown one time.
The title of the video suggests Vorderman did this calculation.
I remember watching this show with my Grandad when I visited England growing up.
What a legend!
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.
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
Episode 4051 (3200 shows later was on the 1st episode of 2019).
Brilliant!
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.
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
Now this was the proper Countdown with Carol Voderman and the late Richard Whiteley.
I bet he’s a master of street countdown
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT
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/...
81,300 must be the highest solution in Countdown history!
The highest intermediate total was during Series 71, during George Ford's second game. He went as high as 97,500
Lol, I got this one, but not within the 30 seconds... This guy is too good.
Well done young man!
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
Admit it or not, John is brilliant!
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.
You can tell she's pissed, for him getting it, when she couldn't.
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.
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.
That was very impressive he is a genius.
we have heard of divide and conquer but this is an perfect sample of multipy and attack!
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
He’ll be alright at homeschooling...
Love these !! 👍👍🙂🖖🇺🇸
The 1626 is really clever. The × 50 / 100 is just for fun we can divide by (100/50)...
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 !
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
Amazing solve
This was a nice set
I got 211
LMAO 211 LIKES IM CRYING
@@namxxn yes crazy
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
that is superb. any more of those?
This is amazing wow
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! 😉
I paused this for 5 mins, still nowhere near, pretty impressive
"What do you want to study at Cambridge?"
"Cocktail sticks!"
Broadcast on Wednesday 6th April 2005
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!
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.
Great presenters RIP Richard
1:22 *Well bloody done!*
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.
I'm taking your word for it .. proves she isnt such a maths expert
I know right. 1626 x 50 is very easy to do in your head. Just do 1626 x 100 which is simple, just add two 0's. Then cut it in half. What is so hard lady?
Countdown showboating love it
Absolute beast mode!
Damn I would have only got 814... 813 that's clever!
Me too. I thought I was good getting that in the 30 seconds 🙂
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
Fantastic
Just watched this when i woke up... going back to sleep.
Dream well
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.
could have divided 50 by 100 for 2 and then 1626 / 2 , but great job 😁
or even better 100/50 for 2. Apparently I can't do maths lol
OMG, love it.
Teapot for this guy! I love Complicated numbers!!!
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 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
TH-cam Recommendation Roulette favours me tonight, it seems.
That is some crazy mental arithmetic!
"Carol you're literally laughing at numbers."
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.
Humble 💯
Great!
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. ;)
"Carol, you're laughing at numbers."
A fellow Partridge fan 👍
You’re laughing at drizzle Lynne!
I got 814 and am relatively proud of that, but this is incredible!
Impressive, good luck to him
"I'll take your word for it" no wonder they got Rachel Riley on instead
DDrolet997 I'm sure someone backstage confirmed with a calculator.
Yuh, an upgrade intellectually at least.
Yep live seen Riley unable to solve an equation. I guess Carol didn't need to try to show off
No they got her only because Carol quit (several years after this episode was shown). I've seen that Riley female fail far more times that Carol did.
If you think she didn't already know how he would finish it when he said multiply by 50, you've clearly not seen much of Carol Vorderman. She knows he's right, and that the next thing he is going to do is divide by 100 because she can already see the simple solution of 100/50=2, 1626/2 = 813. Therefore, (1626*50)/100 is also 813, it's the same operation as before just rearranged, that's how maths works. She knows that he is correct because if the final answer is 813 and all he has left is 100, so he's clearly going be dividing by it, so 1626*50 must be 81,300.
I thought that I had done quite well in attaining 811
100+50=150
150/25=6
75+6=81
81×10=810
810+1=811
Amazing
Very good