@@ProulxS no, but this is a standard math problem. unless youre telling me that you think that everything is a catch or some kind of different process on a normal basis. This is the Air Bud dilemma. A basketball playing dog. when pressed if such a thing is legal, the rule book doesnt say that a dog CANT play basketball. But, the issue is not that all players in a game must be registered for said team, but that its not a game for dogs. Most sports have eligibility rules that describe the those who can play as “men” or “women”, both of which are terms that are understood to refer to humans only. Or the simple point is if it should. You are given a math problem for a 1st grader. and youre trying to make 2+2=1 1/3rd. its not that fucking complicated. The problem also didnt mention if these boxes on this train are in space, so they can float, or on earth so they all file into place like tetris. its not that fuckin hard.
@@kellerweskier7214 If you assume things in math you will get wrong very fast once past first few grades. This is standard math problem to make you think farther than the limited info you are given. I would say what assuming does to you and me but youtube would block my comment. Not everything is a catch but you must be able to admit that the info is incomplete... Partial info in real world will lead to guesstimations which can be very hurtfuls
More than just a playset, the model airport at 3:17 is a part of Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg, Germany. Besides the airport, the layout has sections about Switzerland, Italy, South America, and even the US! In the summer of 2000, Frederik Braun, one of the two founders of Miniatur Wunderland, was on vacation in Zurich. In a local model train store, he came up with the idea for the world's largest model railway. Knuffingen Airport (a fictional town with an airport based off of Hamburg's airport) has an area of 150 squared meters, making it the largest model airport. After almost six years of construction, it was inaugurated in 2011, and as shown here, the planes realistically land and take-off, and there are airport vehicles on the move too. How they take-off/land is basically they're big Carsystem vehicles, they follow a wire in the roadbed with the help of a steering magnet and are self-powered. This is great because it enables the planes to move individually on the airfield. But they didn’t want to simply let the planes drive up a Plexiglas ramp, so they came up with a sort of catapult. A special carriage system was built below the runway. From this carriage two pole emerge, “skewering” the plane before take-off, by driving into two tandem holes on the lower side of the plane body. Two poles are necessary so the plane will not twist and lift off realistically nose first. Both poles have individual prompting and together lift the airplane off the runway.
3:49 Cats are intensely creatures of routine. It's not just that your cat heard you doing your workout and identified it solely based off of that, but rather that he heard you moving around in the right area and recognized that it was at the same time of day as previous times you'd done it, and knew from there. In regards to helicopters versus planes, it is possible to land helicopters with damage even including missing the entire tail (not particularly enjoyable to do, but possible), but planes are largely safer because they're designed to run on a lot less than what they have, down to as few as one engine - even passenger airliners and cargo planes with four can often run on just one, with some exceptions regarding which one stays active, and every system on board is built like that. Many helicopters don't have the capacity to do that, particularly in regards to the rotors themselves. This is, if anything, more due to how they're continually produced without further improvements on the designs for the sake of money. I wouldn't particularly trust any modern plane to glide far though. They can fly when they have the thrust from modern engines but they are far from built to glide.
The tiger in Russia at 4:49 is an Amur tiger, also known as the Siberian tiger! They are the biggest of tiger subspeciess, and thus the biggest cats in the world, with males weighing up to 660 pounds and measuring up to 10 feet long from nose to tip of the tail. It once ranged throughout the Korean Peninsula, but currently inhabits mainly the Sikhote-Alin mountain region in southwest Primorye Province in the Russian Far East and a bit of northeastern China. The Siberian tiger is genetically close to the now-extinct Caspian tiger, so they are genetically different from the tigers found in South and Southeast Asia. They have the thickest coats among tigers due to the harsh climate. Thick fur on their paws keeps their feet warm, allows them to walk silently as they stalk prey, and makes their feet behave like snowshoes as they move through the snow. Because of naturally low numbers of prey animals in eastern Russia, Amur tigers have large hunting areas. Females range between 95 and 170 square miles, sometimes dividing it up with their daughters. Males' territories can be up to 770 square miles and may overlap with several females' territories. In Korean culture, tigers are historic symbols of the peninsula. Korea is known as the land of tigers and is said to resemble one! The white tiger Baekho is described in myths and narratives as a divine imaginary animal that watches over the mountains and nature. When Pyeongchang hosted the 2018 Winter Olympics, they selected a white tiger named Soohorang as the mascot! Sooho means protection in Korean and Rang derives from "Ho-rang-i", the Korean word for tiger. Rang also references to Arirang, a cherished traditional Korean folk song from Gangwon where Pyeongchang is located.
Baekho is also present in Japanese and Chinese mythology as a protector of humanity and a god of the north. Atsushi Nakajima in Bungo Stray Dogs's special ability, "Beast Beneath the Moonlight", is noticably based off of him.
this may be lazy content, but sometimes its nice to listen to dudes reacting and then rambling off about some random thing. very calming to me when im going to bed lol
from what I've gathered its just 3 rows of 17 squares. Side view is in 3 columns, each being 4, 6, and 7 respectively (don't have to explain how you get 17 from that). the view from the front/back is 3 rows, which would be 3 rows of 17 squares. [17 x 3] being 51, some people are just tricked by the 3 perspectives. TL;DR for those who dislike yap, the answer is 51 and common sense isn't all too common when it comes to math.
@@Heresy_Enjoyer Partial rows mean it could be as low as 35. If you take 2nd row from front it could be a 2,1,1 and still fulfill the shown info. No one said 2nd row has 2 box high all the way. It could have a 2 box high anywhere and side view would show a 2 high... Common sense would make us ask why Johnny has 19 bottles of dish soap. Vine told us the answer is to mind your own business David
@@Heresy_EnjoyerWe don't know if they're full. While we see a 3x3 in the Back view, a 4-6-7 layers from the Side view and a 3x7 from the Top view, it doesn't mean it's a strictly "solid" shape. If you fill the bare minimum to make such views possible, you end up with a minimum number of 35 boxes, and a maximum number of 51 boxes if the shape is "solid".
@@KyzenEX all of you are stupid, you dont need the top view. its a 3x3 grid of square boxes, lined up into rows of 4 6 and 7, 3x4= 12, 6x3= 18. 7x3 =21, 21+12+18=51
0:32 51 Max, 35 Min From the side: 4 + 6 + 7 = 17. Each layer is 3 boxes wide, so 17×3= 51. For the 35 figure, I just built it in Minecraft lol. Kinda hard to explain otherwise
There are 16 boxes that are in quantum superposition. They are in two walls of 8 boxes. We know that the entire bottom must be covered because of the top view, as a 3x7 grid. We also know that one 3x3 section must be filled from the back view (3 of which are already counted from the top view). We also know that the 8 additional boxes we see in the side view must also be there. From this, we get (7x3) + (3x3) + 8 - 3 = 35. We can use this to see that 51-35=16, and since we are unable to observe these boxes and they must be in one of multiple states of being, we can say that they are in a state of superposition. We know where they are because we know where they are not. Hope this helps!
We do not see a diagonal view of the trailer, so we do not know af the entire trailer is stacked consistently. All that we do know is: 1. Every space in the 3 × 7 grid has at least one cube (top view) 2. No stack of cubes can be greater than 4 cubes tall (back view) 3. All three cube stacks in the back are stacked 3 cubes tall (back view) 4. There are at least 10 cubes stacked on top of other cubes, ignoring the back view (side view). If we take the base of 21 cubes, and add the side view's additional 10 cubes, we only have 4 more cubes from the back side, giving us a minimum of 35 cubes. However if we assume all three rows of cubes are stacked according to the side view, we end with a maximum of 51 cubes. Therefore, any number of cubes between 35 and 51 cubes can be placed in such a way to match all three perspectives that we are shown. I do think that in a real-world situation, we would have 51 cubes because the lowest amount of cubes would likely topple at even the suggestion of a turn/wind, but in a hypothetical math situation in which we are just trying to look like we have more cubes than we do now, we would need at least 35 cubes to create such a display. And also yeah, Brandon was unreasonably mad there.
We have no information on the number of boxes in the middle row. Sure the 2 outer rows have 3 high stacks but what about the very middle that you cannot see with a direct side profile.
1:30 I can confirm they don't give you a range. They make it misleading intentionally, and then say shit like "If you don't get this spot on, I will not only not give you points for this, but I will also take away points from what you did correctly." Glad that guy got replaced.
Yeah, same bc in the bottom one there is 7 cubes in three different rows, 21 cubes in the bottom. The middle one has 6 cubes in three rows, 18 cubes. And the top one has 4 cubes in three rows, 12. Adding everything, you have 51 cubes.
@@localdoormatshitterBecause people like to flex on others, and there's people with 0 math capabilities (like our yt frens up there) that get insanely mad about not being able to do them
0:33 as you can see from the top and the back the trailer is 3 boxes wide all the way down, now if you look at the side, theres 17 boxes showing, now if you use the knowledge that theres 2 more boxes for each box thats 17×3 which is 51
00:33 Minimum: 31 Top 3x7 = 21 Side 17-7 =10 (7 from bottom are duplicate Back = 0 (image the "side" collums that are 3 high could each be on a different depth so it doesn't change the minimum) Maximum: 51 Side: 17x3 = 51
0:34 assuming this is a perspective game, where you have to use limites viewpoints to determine how many cubes there are, i have determined there are at least 35 cubes, but there could be up to 16 more, so 35-51 cubes I would show my logic, but im not rlly sure how to put my thought process into words.
@@USER-vb7rono you cannot. What about the middle row, we have no depth so the middle boxes could only be stacked 1 high and you wouldn't be able to tell from the views we are given
However, the top and back view only tell you that all spaces have at least one layer of boxes, and that only the back three stacks have three. We don't know for sure if all of the boxes in the middle/the other side are stacked in the same manner as the one side, because of the lack of depth, second side profile, or a diagonal view. Therefore we would have 17 from the singular side view, an additional 6 from the back view, and if all other boxes are singular, 12 more boxes for a minimum of 35 boxes. If the entire shape of boxes is consistent, we would have 51 boxes. Any number of cubes between these two values can be stacked in a manner that can satisfy all three perspectives.
51 only if all rows are "full". Since we don't know, the bare minimum to comply with each presented view is 35 boxes, wirh a maximum of 51 boxes if every layer is "full".
@@dollface9448 my brother in Christ i built the scenario in MC to see what the minimum amount of boxes required to match each view would be 💀 explain your process please
It is not uncommon for math problems to not have a definitive solution. There's a common one (tought in early years of high school) that uses 3 variables, and the second one can be either positive or negative, leading to 2 possible results. (i don't remember which one it is, don't ask me) Other math problems with several unknown variables also expect you to REDUCE the formula as much as you can, something like this: 10 + A - B = 0 A - B = -10
The cubes on the trailer question(here: 0:33 ) is actually solvable... Kinda, we would have to assume that the side view is mirrored exactly to the other side and that no cubes in the middle are missing, but if we do that, and with some slight calculations we get :51 (if I'm not dumb rn, idk it's 2am)
Even if mirroir the box you are seeing from side is where? Could be the furthest spot from you with 2 empty slot in front. You start by assuming, which is dangerous in math, but you also assume with still unknowns. Partials rows could give thoses views and reduce count by up to 16. So could be between 35 and 51.
@@ProulxS Man this redditor is fuckin MAAAAAAAAAD this is like the third fuckin time he's posted the same grassless comment. You work with what you are given. I do real world math for my job. YOU DO NOT, get to extrapolate and get 5 from 2+2. Fuck I even work with Boxes in non cuboidal fashion and they still need stuff under the whole to not damage themselves or their content. You want an assumption? I will give you a fucking assumption. What's holding those Cubes up? Because if you say there's a rod between all cubes holding them together to keep the mystical air spaces completely cubular inside (guess what that makes them boyo), then the outside is no longer cubes. DO NOT bring minecraft into it because that game does not take physics into account. The image is of shit on a railcar for transport.
@@Vindictator1972 What do you mean that "51 is not the maximum" (Vindicator1972, 1 hour ago)? The side view shows us that any one row of cubes can be stacked to a maximum of 17 cubes. The back and top row show us that there are three rows, and if we multiply that side view by the three rows [17 × 3], we get a maximum of 51 cubes. The lack of a diagonal perspective that would show any inconsistencies in stacking tells us that any of the other rows may have a total of less than 17 cubes, but the side view gives us a clear limit on the maximum amount of cubes per row [17]. Any greater amount of cubes for any row would then change the silhouette of the side view. Unless all cubes that we do not see in the three perspectives are smaller than the cubes we do see and are still defined as cubes, the maximum amount of cubes we can stack to match these parameters is 51 cubes.
0:34 Fym not enough information? You don’t even need the top view. If you count the cubes on the side, you get 17. With the back you you can see there are three layers of cubes. 17*3 is 51
no, we don't have depth and every box is the same color. It COULD be: 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 (which is 51) OR it could be 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 (which is 35) OR if you think the side view shows both sides it could be 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 (which is 43) or any other combination that keeps the back and side as what is shown.
For the math problem, the side view is the key. We know from the top that it's 3 blocks long at all points, and we know from the back it's 3 blocks wide. So, the first 4 rows, all 3 tall, so 9 per row, makes 36. The next two rows are only two blocks high, so 6 on each row, making it 48. Final row is only 3 blocks, so the grand total is 51.
@@ProulxSyeah, in the very real situation that CUBECORP wants us to think they have more CUBES than they currently do at the moment, they would only need 35 CUBES to satisfy these 3 perspectives that have absolutely no sense of depth. They could even use a cardboard replica that mimicked 51 CUBES and CUBECORP would fool us without having any CUBES at all. BOYCOTT CUBECORP!
Not a professional mathematician, but the cube problem wouldn't be represented by an area, as it's asking for what stryxo said was a range of values. I think it would instead be a vertical line for this scenario, where x is the maximum amount of cubes possible within the parameters of the perspectives, and f(x) is all amounts of cubes one could use to fool one into believing there is x cubes. Totally not continuous, or a function. Maybe if you swapped them, where x is the number of cubes you have and y is the number of cubes you could fool someone into thinking you have with an indefinite stacking distance and a 3 × 7 grid, possibly? Even then I wouldn't know where to begin to start graphing points... This was a good brain twister though, if I made any mistake please respond, and have a good time of day :D
7:22 well Super Saiyan 5 or somenthing similar to It exist there's an official non official design made for a like an April fools some time after GT ended
what real world use does that math question even have, ah yes me when i'm loading an uncovered truck and forgot how many boxes i loaded so i just use my 3 camera views i can conveniently see right now to figure it out
There is 100% enough information on that truck problem, the top image is meant to throw you off only the side and back photos are necessary. Each one you see on the side is 3 so there is ~51 cubes from what I counted.
0:33 Top. all rows are of 3 boxes Back image isnt needed. useless. side view, top row is 4. middle 6. bottom 7 (3x4=12. 3x6=18. 3x7=21) = 51 boxes. wtf is the problem here?
the problem is that there is no depth, the boxes could all be aqually stacked as shown or could be different and still look the same without depth. the configuration COULD be 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 and it would look exactly the same.
@@kellerweskier7214 it's not self solve. you should NEVER assume in math. I never allowed my teachers to give problems like this as I would fight over the need to assume in order to solve.
@@gabrielhenson5751 no. you are supposed to assume. Math is a system where ALL information is present to salve an issue in basic fundamentals or of a specific way of getting an answer. If its beyond that, its considered Science. or the system of finding an answer that has not presented known information to you in solving a problem. Math: You have all info or are presented in a way to find the info, to solve. Science: Find the info yourself to solve.
@@kellerweskier7214 yes, which is why this fails to be a good math problem, you DON'T have enough information without assuming. And according to your definition of math assumptions have no place as you are supposed to already have all the info. Needing to assume means you don't have enough information.
You can't just do 17x3 there is no proof that every layer goes 3 deep we only know that in every row it someone at least once stacks up to 3 high and that at least there is 1 cube on every 7x3 base area (top view)
How is there not enough info to do the math problem? Depth is Length x Width x Depth, which in this case is 7 x 3 x 3 = 63. Then we can see from the side view that there're 4 cubes missing, but the top view looks totally filled in, so we can assume that missing pattern is the same all the way across, therefore 4 x 3 = 12 missing cubes. 63 - 12 = 51 total cubes. This is like 4th grader shit.
11:31 i mean it's being directed by eli roth and the trailer looks alright. people are already calling it woke because the characters are as diverse as a dentist's waiting room, but anything north of a jar of mayo is woke to them. you'll have to wait until the movie comes out but i'm still 50/50 on it, i just don't like kevin hart so i probably won't see it because of him unless i hear good reviews.
0:33 The Top layer would be 3 x 4 = 12, Middle layer would be 3 x 6 = 18, and the Bottom layer being 3 x 7 = 21.
12 + 18 + 21 = 51 Cubes in total.
Or there are some partials row and minimum is 35. 2nd row could have 2,1,1 boxes
@@ProulxS but it doesnt state 'partial rows' does it.
@@kellerweskier7214 but it doesn't states full row does it?
@@ProulxS no, but this is a standard math problem. unless youre telling me that you think that everything is a catch or some kind of different process on a normal basis.
This is the Air Bud dilemma. A basketball playing dog. when pressed if such a thing is legal, the rule book doesnt say that a dog CANT play basketball.
But, the issue is not that all players in a game must be registered for said team, but that its not a game for dogs. Most sports have eligibility rules that describe the those who can play as “men” or “women”, both of which are terms that are understood to refer to humans only. Or the simple point is if it should.
You are given a math problem for a 1st grader. and youre trying to make 2+2=1 1/3rd. its not that fucking complicated. The problem also didnt mention if these boxes on this train are in space, so they can float, or on earth so they all file into place like tetris.
its not that fuckin hard.
@@kellerweskier7214 If you assume things in math you will get wrong very fast once past first few grades. This is standard math problem to make you think farther than the limited info you are given. I would say what assuming does to you and me but youtube would block my comment. Not everything is a catch but you must be able to admit that the info is incomplete... Partial info in real world will lead to guesstimations which can be very hurtfuls
More than just a playset, the model airport at 3:17 is a part of Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg, Germany. Besides the airport, the layout has sections about Switzerland, Italy, South America, and even the US! In the summer of 2000, Frederik Braun, one of the two founders of Miniatur Wunderland, was on vacation in Zurich. In a local model train store, he came up with the idea for the world's largest model railway. Knuffingen Airport (a fictional town with an airport based off of Hamburg's airport) has an area of 150 squared meters, making it the largest model airport. After almost six years of construction, it was inaugurated in 2011, and as shown here, the planes realistically land and take-off, and there are airport vehicles on the move too.
How they take-off/land is basically they're big Carsystem vehicles, they follow a wire in the roadbed with the help of a steering magnet and are self-powered. This is great because it enables the planes to move individually on the airfield. But they didn’t want to simply let the planes drive up a Plexiglas ramp, so they came up with a sort of catapult. A special carriage system was built below the runway. From this carriage two pole emerge, “skewering” the plane before take-off, by driving into two tandem holes on the lower side of the plane body. Two poles are necessary so the plane will not twist and lift off realistically nose first. Both poles have individual prompting and together lift the airplane off the runway.
that's so cool!
3:49 Cats are intensely creatures of routine. It's not just that your cat heard you doing your workout and identified it solely based off of that, but rather that he heard you moving around in the right area and recognized that it was at the same time of day as previous times you'd done it, and knew from there.
In regards to helicopters versus planes, it is possible to land helicopters with damage even including missing the entire tail (not particularly enjoyable to do, but possible), but planes are largely safer because they're designed to run on a lot less than what they have, down to as few as one engine - even passenger airliners and cargo planes with four can often run on just one, with some exceptions regarding which one stays active, and every system on board is built like that. Many helicopters don't have the capacity to do that, particularly in regards to the rotors themselves. This is, if anything, more due to how they're continually produced without further improvements on the designs for the sake of money.
I wouldn't particularly trust any modern plane to glide far though. They can fly when they have the thrust from modern engines but they are far from built to glide.
17:45 That was the hardest I've ever heard Stryxo laugh lmao
All because he got to Brandon 😂😂
The tiger in Russia at 4:49 is an Amur tiger, also known as the Siberian tiger! They are the biggest of tiger subspeciess, and thus the biggest cats in the world, with males weighing up to 660 pounds and measuring up to 10 feet long from nose to tip of the tail. It once ranged throughout the Korean Peninsula, but currently inhabits mainly the Sikhote-Alin mountain region in southwest Primorye Province in the Russian Far East and a bit of northeastern China. The Siberian tiger is genetically close to the now-extinct Caspian tiger, so they are genetically different from the tigers found in South and Southeast Asia. They have the thickest coats among tigers due to the harsh climate. Thick fur on their paws keeps their feet warm, allows them to walk silently as they stalk prey, and makes their feet behave like snowshoes as they move through the snow.
Because of naturally low numbers of prey animals in eastern Russia, Amur tigers have large hunting areas. Females range between 95 and 170 square miles, sometimes dividing it up with their daughters. Males' territories can be up to 770 square miles and may overlap with several females' territories. In Korean culture, tigers are historic symbols of the peninsula. Korea is known as the land of tigers and is said to resemble one! The white tiger Baekho is described in myths and narratives as a divine imaginary animal that watches over the mountains and nature. When Pyeongchang hosted the 2018 Winter Olympics, they selected a white tiger named Soohorang as the mascot! Sooho means protection in Korean and Rang derives from "Ho-rang-i", the Korean word for tiger. Rang also references to Arirang, a cherished traditional Korean folk song from Gangwon where Pyeongchang is located.
Baekho is also present in Japanese and Chinese mythology as a protector of humanity and a god of the north. Atsushi Nakajima in Bungo Stray Dogs's special ability, "Beast Beneath the Moonlight", is noticably based off of him.
17:15 nobody notices that the user was twomad
I miss that man
this may be lazy content, but sometimes its nice to listen to dudes reacting and then rambling off about some random thing. very calming to me when im going to bed lol
1:23 Brandon is sounding like the guy that ranting about pronounce Stanfield
0:33 minimum would be 35 if only shown are there and its empty behind. Max would be 51 if we assume everything behind a box is fully filled out.
from what I've gathered its just 3 rows of 17 squares. Side view is in 3 columns, each being 4, 6, and 7 respectively (don't have to explain how you get 17 from that). the view from the front/back is 3 rows, which would be 3 rows of 17 squares. [17 x 3] being 51, some people are just tricked by the 3 perspectives.
TL;DR for those who dislike yap, the answer is 51 and common sense isn't all too common when it comes to math.
@@Heresy_Enjoyer Partial rows mean it could be as low as 35. If you take 2nd row from front it could be a 2,1,1 and still fulfill the shown info. No one said 2nd row has 2 box high all the way. It could have a 2 box high anywhere and side view would show a 2 high...
Common sense would make us ask why Johnny has 19 bottles of dish soap. Vine told us the answer is to mind your own business David
@@Heresy_EnjoyerWe don't know if they're full. While we see a 3x3 in the Back view, a 4-6-7 layers from the Side view and a 3x7 from the Top view, it doesn't mean it's a strictly "solid" shape. If you fill the bare minimum to make such views possible, you end up with a minimum number of 35 boxes, and a maximum number of 51 boxes if the shape is "solid".
@@KyzenEX all of you are stupid, you dont need the top view. its a 3x3 grid of square boxes, lined up into rows of 4 6 and 7, 3x4= 12, 6x3= 18. 7x3 =21, 21+12+18=51
your getting meta by saying "ow well the rows could not be full" to try and look smarter well answering a fucking 1st grade problem
6:13 me hideing cheap girl clothes so I don’t end up homeless from my father
Make 41% into 42%
@@kinggizzwizfizzwhat?
Only a minute and Shartanz is yelling
0:32 51 Max, 35 Min
From the side: 4 + 6 + 7 = 17. Each layer is 3 boxes wide, so 17×3= 51.
For the 35 figure, I just built it in Minecraft lol. Kinda hard to explain otherwise
That's what I thought right??? The top view is just to fuck with you
There are 16 boxes that are in quantum superposition. They are in two walls of 8 boxes.
We know that the entire bottom must be covered because of the top view, as a 3x7 grid. We also know that one 3x3 section must be filled from the back view (3 of which are already counted from the top view). We also know that the 8 additional boxes we see in the side view must also be there. From this, we get (7x3) + (3x3) + 8 - 3 = 35.
We can use this to see that 51-35=16, and since we are unable to observe these boxes and they must be in one of multiple states of being, we can say that they are in a state of superposition. We know where they are because we know where they are not. Hope this helps!
@@aidenzorn8322we dont have confirmation that all hidden slots are filled. It could be or not
Holy shit, funny YLYL Pokay video? in 2024? We are so back.
That math problem is 100% just 51. You see 51, there is nothing saying it's a range. Brandon is just finding a way to be mad.
We do not see a diagonal view of the trailer, so we do not know af the entire trailer is stacked consistently. All that we do know is:
1. Every space in the 3 × 7 grid has at least one cube (top view)
2. No stack of cubes can be greater than 4 cubes tall (back view)
3. All three cube stacks in the back are stacked 3 cubes tall (back view)
4. There are at least 10 cubes stacked on top of other cubes, ignoring the back view (side view).
If we take the base of 21 cubes, and add the side view's additional 10 cubes, we only have 4 more cubes from the back side, giving us a minimum of 35 cubes. However if we assume all three rows of cubes are stacked according to the side view, we end with a maximum of 51 cubes. Therefore, any number of cubes between 35 and 51 cubes can be placed in such a way to match all three perspectives that we are shown.
I do think that in a real-world situation, we would have 51 cubes because the lowest amount of cubes would likely topple at even the suggestion of a turn/wind, but in a hypothetical math situation in which we are just trying to look like we have more cubes than we do now, we would need at least 35 cubes to create such a display. And also yeah, Brandon was unreasonably mad there.
We have no information on the number of boxes in the middle row. Sure the 2 outer rows have 3 high stacks but what about the very middle that you cannot see with a direct side profile.
17:02 last footage of twomad
1:30 I can confirm they don't give you a range. They make it misleading intentionally, and then say shit like "If you don't get this spot on, I will not only not give you points for this, but I will also take away points from what you did correctly."
Glad that guy got replaced.
17:40 INSANEEEEEE LMFAO
6:32 so this happens alot during the summer at donut places because bees like sugar and what better place to find it then a place filled with sugar
Buying WinRAR is truly a fate worse than death.
(Poke you gotta deal with these bots maaaaan)
I see that icon
@@StygianPrime_ Toaster detected :3
im guessing 51 cubes on the problem
Yeah, same bc in the bottom one there is 7 cubes in three different rows, 21 cubes in the bottom. The middle one has 6 cubes in three rows, 18 cubes. And the top one has 4 cubes in three rows, 12. Adding everything, you have 51 cubes.
@@chrissilva1034 why is it viral anyway?
@@localdoormatshitter people like to make big deals out of random stuff nowadays tbh
I just solve it like algebra. (7x3)3-12=51
@@localdoormatshitterBecause people like to flex on others, and there's people with 0 math capabilities (like our yt frens up there) that get insanely mad about not being able to do them
0:33 as you can see from the top and the back the trailer is 3 boxes wide all the way down, now if you look at the side, theres 17 boxes showing, now if you use the knowledge that theres 2 more boxes for each box thats 17×3 which is 51
WOOOO YEAH YUMMY SLOP!!!!!
00:33 Minimum: 31
Top 3x7 = 21
Side 17-7 =10 (7 from bottom are duplicate
Back = 0 (image the "side" collums that are 3 high could each be on a different depth so it doesn't change the minimum)
Maximum: 51
Side: 17x3 = 51
0:32 it shows you enough to tell how much is on the trailer, it's 54
0:34 assuming this is a perspective game, where you have to use limites viewpoints to determine how many cubes there are, i have determined there are at least 35 cubes, but there could be up to 16 more, so 35-51 cubes I would show my logic, but im not rlly sure how to put my thought process into words.
The math problem shown at 0:33 is actually ABSURDLY easy (17x3) (I think) and this proves that Brandon is a brainlet
yes, agreed. You can completely ignore the top layer and still solve the problem.
@@USER-vb7rono you cannot. What about the middle row, we have no depth so the middle boxes could only be stacked 1 high and you wouldn't be able to tell from the views we are given
1:00 its 51 boxes. (21 on the bottom, 18 on the 2nd layer, 12 on the top
video couldnt have ended any better
4:25 zombie 🧟♀️
There is a lot of boxes on that math truck lol xD
0:33 bro the answer is 51 💀💥
5:05 if dangerous animal, why so cute and sweet?
lmao the ending
I believe there are 51 cubes on the trailer
4:33
There are 51 crates on the truck.
Just count the crates from the side view (which is 17) and then times it by three.
However, the top and back view only tell you that all spaces have at least one layer of boxes, and that only the back three stacks have three. We don't know for sure if all of the boxes in the middle/the other side are stacked in the same manner as the one side, because of the lack of depth, second side profile, or a diagonal view. Therefore we would have 17 from the singular side view, an additional 6 from the back view, and if all other boxes are singular, 12 more boxes for a minimum of 35 boxes. If the entire shape of boxes is consistent, we would have 51 boxes. Any number of cubes between these two values can be stacked in a manner that can satisfy all three perspectives.
0:33 I believe the answer is 51
It's 51, you have the side and the top that's all you need
But some rows could be partials, like 2nd row could have 2,1,1 and still fulfill the shown info
51 only if all rows are "full". Since we don't know, the bare minimum to comply with each presented view is 35 boxes, wirh a maximum of 51 boxes if every layer is "full".
@@KyzenEX 31 boxes is the minimum not 35
@@dollface9448 my brother in Christ i built the scenario in MC to see what the minimum amount of boxes required to match each view would be 💀
explain your process please
@@KyzenEX answer 31-51 no need for anything else
Brandon getting mad at styxo for having sleep apnea 😂
It is not uncommon for math problems to not have a definitive solution.
There's a common one (tought in early years of high school) that uses 3 variables, and the second one can be either positive or negative, leading to 2 possible results. (i don't remember which one it is, don't ask me)
Other math problems with several unknown variables also expect you to REDUCE the formula as much as you can, something like this:
10 + A - B = 0
A - B = -10
51 cubes on the trailer I think
0:33 thers 51 cubes
That good sir is the Maximum amount of cubes that could be on the trailer.
The cubes on the trailer question(here: 0:33 ) is actually solvable... Kinda, we would have to assume that the side view is mirrored exactly to the other side and that no cubes in the middle are missing, but if we do that, and with some slight calculations we get :51 (if I'm not dumb rn, idk it's 2am)
all you really need is the side and the top view to get the answer (don’t worry you’re right, the answer is 51)
Even if mirroir the box you are seeing from side is where? Could be the furthest spot from you with 2 empty slot in front. You start by assuming, which is dangerous in math, but you also assume with still unknowns. Partials rows could give thoses views and reduce count by up to 16. So could be between 35 and 51.
@@ProulxS Man this redditor is fuckin MAAAAAAAAAD this is like the third fuckin time he's posted the same grassless comment.
You work with what you are given.
I do real world math for my job. YOU DO NOT, get to extrapolate and get 5 from 2+2. Fuck I even work with Boxes in non cuboidal fashion and they still need stuff under the whole to not damage themselves or their content.
You want an assumption? I will give you a fucking assumption.
What's holding those Cubes up? Because if you say there's a rod between all cubes holding them together to keep the mystical air spaces completely cubular inside (guess what that makes them boyo), then the outside is no longer cubes.
DO NOT bring minecraft into it because that game does not take physics into account. The image is of shit on a railcar for transport.
You want to really start extrapolating? 51 is not the Maximum. Start adding the 2*2 pairings you can make, then do it for 3*3.
@@Vindictator1972 What do you mean that "51 is not the maximum" (Vindicator1972, 1 hour ago)? The side view shows us that any one row of cubes can be stacked to a maximum of 17 cubes. The back and top row show us that there are three rows, and if we multiply that side view by the three rows [17 × 3], we get a maximum of 51 cubes. The lack of a diagonal perspective that would show any inconsistencies in stacking tells us that any of the other rows may have a total of less than 17 cubes, but the side view gives us a clear limit on the maximum amount of cubes per row [17]. Any greater amount of cubes for any row would then change the silhouette of the side view. Unless all cubes that we do not see in the three perspectives are smaller than the cubes we do see and are still defined as cubes, the maximum amount of cubes we can stack to match these parameters is 51 cubes.
0:34 Fym not enough information? You don’t even need the top view. If you count the cubes on the side, you get 17. With the back you you can see there are three layers of cubes. 17*3 is 51
no, we don't have depth and every box is the same color. It COULD be:
3 3 3 3 2 2 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 1 (which is 51)
OR it could be
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 1 (which is 35)
OR if you think the side view shows both sides it could be
3 3 3 3 2 2 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 1 (which is 43)
or any other combination that keeps the back and side as what is shown.
The truck has 47-51 cubes
Also, cats do that for attention. My cat tries to always get my attention when I'm doing "me stuff"
For the math problem, the side view is the key. We know from the top that it's 3 blocks long at all points, and we know from the back it's 3 blocks wide. So, the first 4 rows, all 3 tall, so 9 per row, makes 36. The next two rows are only two blocks high, so 6 on each row, making it 48. Final row is only 3 blocks, so the grand total is 51.
Or there are partials row... Like 2nd could have 2,1,1 and still fulfill the shown info. Minimum is 35
@@ProulxSyeah, in the very real situation that CUBECORP wants us to think they have more CUBES than they currently do at the moment, they would only need 35 CUBES to satisfy these 3 perspectives that have absolutely no sense of depth. They could even use a cardboard replica that mimicked 51 CUBES and CUBECORP would fool us without having any CUBES at all. BOYCOTT CUBECORP!
holy shit they're closeted overwatch players
(i am too)
the answer for the trailer question is 51 max 21 minimum - proof for 21 minimum is in my vids, most recent
Oh god WildShartenz is in this video
I literally learned that math question a few months ago. I couldn't ever tell you how or what it is but it was like an area below a curve.
Not a professional mathematician, but the cube problem wouldn't be represented by an area, as it's asking for what stryxo said was a range of values. I think it would instead be a vertical line for this scenario, where x is the maximum amount of cubes possible within the parameters of the perspectives, and f(x) is all amounts of cubes one could use to fool one into believing there is x cubes. Totally not continuous, or a function. Maybe if you swapped them, where x is the number of cubes you have and y is the number of cubes you could fool someone into thinking you have with an indefinite stacking distance and a 3 × 7 grid, possibly? Even then I wouldn't know where to begin to start graphing points...
This was a good brain twister though, if I made any mistake please respond, and have a good time of day :D
7:22 well Super Saiyan 5 or somenthing similar to It exist there's an official non official design made for a like an April fools some time after GT ended
You mean Dragon Ball AF?
what real world use does that math question even have, ah yes me when i'm loading an uncovered truck and forgot how many boxes i loaded so i just use my 3 camera views i can conveniently see right now to figure it out
People are trying to figure out the math problem, but I just wanna know the song at 12:05, it's funky
ayyy i got something in common with Tom Holland... we both cry a lot and we both talk in asterisks sometimes for jokes
Ayo that overwatch one
0:30
42
and yea they never ask for a range
0:33 I think it’s 41 but I’m tired so correct me if I’m wrong
Poke can you go back in time and ask Stryxo what he's eating?
He eated chalk
It's 51...
There is 100% enough information on that truck problem, the top image is meant to throw you off only the side and back photos are necessary. Each one you see on the side is 3 so there is ~51 cubes from what I counted.
0:34
51 cubes, not that hard
But it would take 8 minutes before we noticed anything
0:33 3×4+3×6+3×7= 51
51 cubes
pokay never fails to fail me!
Brandons method of making a point is just yell as loud as possible and hope no one corrects him.
I'm considering skipping a few of these to watch the hour long ones...
Bro thier is 117 boxes on the trailer their is enough information
0:33
Top. all rows are of 3 boxes
Back image isnt needed. useless.
side view, top row is 4. middle 6. bottom 7
(3x4=12. 3x6=18. 3x7=21) = 51 boxes.
wtf is the problem here?
the problem is that there is no depth, the boxes could all be aqually stacked as shown or could be different and still look the same without depth.
the configuration COULD be
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 1 and it would look exactly the same.
@@gabrielhenson5751 the depth is a self-solve problem. its a 1st grade problem. not a highschool thinking experiment.
@@kellerweskier7214 it's not self solve. you should NEVER assume in math. I never allowed my teachers to give problems like this as I would fight over the need to assume in order to solve.
@@gabrielhenson5751 no. you are supposed to assume. Math is a system where ALL information is present to salve an issue in basic fundamentals or of a specific way of getting an answer.
If its beyond that, its considered Science. or the system of finding an answer that has not presented known information to you in solving a problem.
Math: You have all info or are presented in a way to find the info, to solve.
Science: Find the info yourself to solve.
@@kellerweskier7214 yes, which is why this fails to be a good math problem, you DON'T have enough information without assuming. And according to your definition of math assumptions have no place as you are supposed to already have all the info. Needing to assume means you don't have enough information.
4x9= 36
2x6= 12
36+12+3= 51
im not that stoopid lets goo!!!
The Gdamn title made me laugh before it's even started. Does that count? Am I gonna have to buy Winrar? D:
wait no there is an answer to the truck cube one its 51 just freaking count them hello????
*0:33** it’s 51. Proof Brandon can’t count*
You can't just do 17x3 there is no proof that every layer goes 3 deep we only know that in every row it someone at least once stacks up to 3 high and that at least there is 1 cube on every 7x3 base area (top view)
No views Poke really fell off..
1282 views Poke really fell off..
1498 views, poke really fell off..
1845 views... poke really fell off
1,174 views, Poke really fell off…
2,370, Poke has fallen off his high horse
0:33 51
The truck math is just 63, u don’t need the top view
It’s 51. Who is saying this is hard?
SLOP TIME!!!😋😋😋
Cod gameplay on the first meme lets go
i bought winrar.
How is there not enough info to do the math problem? Depth is Length x Width x Depth, which in this case is 7 x 3 x 3 = 63. Then we can see from the side view that there're 4 cubes missing, but the top view looks totally filled in, so we can assume that missing pattern is the same all the way across, therefore 4 x 3 = 12 missing cubes. 63 - 12 = 51 total cubes. This is like 4th grader shit.
Who here bought WinRAR
The answer is 51 boxes 📦
cheese burger
51 boxes
It’s 147 cubes
35-51
WineRAR
Peepers 🤜 🤛
Isn’t it 51 cubes????
11:31 i mean it's being directed by eli roth and the trailer looks alright. people are already calling it woke because the characters are as diverse as a dentist's waiting room, but anything north of a jar of mayo is woke to them.
you'll have to wait until the movie comes out but i'm still 50/50 on it, i just don't like kevin hart so i probably won't see it because of him unless i hear good reviews.
Man these have become unfunnier knowing Brandon is ableist
What
i buyed winrard
Cringe
I agree with spantz word problems with math are fucking dogshit
51 proof 🤷♂️
No
For the trailer question, just count how many squares there are for the side view, then multipy that by 3.
3×17=51
I’m here, I’m queer, and I’m so big and round from pregnancy
Preganant, boipregers or maybe something more mischievous like enbipregante ??
Gratz!
Maaaaan wanting to be pregnancy but not being able to be feels so baaaad 😢
How did I get 71…
But I’m mobile :(
49 views in a WHOLE 2 MINUTES? It's so jover