JBoard.tv

MarkBarrett wrote:

Spoiler

$50,000
Though it might be difficult to operate, if the iPod Nano actually measured a nanometer across, it would be how wide?
A: 1 thousandth of a meter
B: 1 millionth of a meter
C: 1 billionth of a meter
D: 1 trillionth of a meter

Next:

Spoiler

During this week the players get a 4th lifeline to Cut the question and have it replaced with another one of the same value. That is what Josh did. The correct answer was: C: 1 billionth of a meter

IronNeck wrote:Amusingly, the question he skipped (which simply required knowing what the prefix nano meant, very commonly used in science) was probably the easiest and quickest one.

Volante wrote:

IronNeck wrote:Amusingly, the question he skipped (which simply required knowing what the prefix nano meant, very commonly used in science) was probably the easiest and quickest one.

How often were you exposed to 'nano-' by age 13, though?

seaborgium wrote:

MarkBarrett wrote:

Spoiler

$50,000
Though it might be difficult to operate, if the iPod Nano actually measured a nanometer across, it would be how wide?
A: 1 thousandth of a meter
B: 1 millionth of a meter
C: 1 billionth of a meter
D: 1 trillionth of a meter

Next:

Spoiler

During this week the players get a 4th lifeline to Cut the question and have it replaced with another one of the same value. That is what Josh did. The correct answer was: C: 1 billionth of a meter

I wonder whether this decision reflected

Spoiler

ignorance of what the "nano" prefix means

, or

Spoiler

a misunderstanding of the question as requiring knowledge of the iPod Nano's proportions.

If the latter,

Spoiler

he could/should have realized that no iPod has proportions of 1:1,000 or 1:1,000,000. I'm going to assume he just didn't know what "nano" meant.

Volante wrote:

IronNeck wrote:Amusingly, the question he skipped (which simply required knowing what the prefix nano meant, very commonly used in science) was probably the easiest and quickest one.

How often were you exposed to 'nano-' by age 13, though?

MarkBarrett wrote:The 2/16 show opened with Josh Darrow returning to see this question:

Spoiler

$250,000 and no lifelines remaining

Next:

Spoiler

Josh did not want to risk a guess even though he felt he could eliminate Denmark and Norway as being Scandinavian and too north. He walked with his $100,000 although of course Chris had him make a guess for fun. Josh said, "Netherlands" and would have been correct.

triviawayne wrote:I've taken notice both kids weeks have been really heavy on the math questions

MarkBarrett wrote:
Next:

Spoiler

Uma Upamaka began play and did not use a lifeline until the $10,000 question.

In order to boast that their age is a prime number, a math-loving nonagenarian must be how old?
A: 91
B: 93
C: 97
D: 99

Next:

Spoiler

Uma did not know and would not/did not/could not figure it out, so used the CUT lifeline to play a new question. The correct answer was of course C: 97 and that was the one she thought it was not.

MinnesotaMyron wrote:

Spoiler

93 and 99 I can cast out threes to quickly see they aren't prime, but what's the quick way to know that 91 isn't? Maybe (49x2)-7? Is there a trickier way?

Golf wrote:

MinnesotaMyron wrote:

Spoiler

93 and 99 I can cast out threes to quickly see they aren't prime, but what's the quick way to know that 91 isn't? Maybe (49x2)-7? Is there a trickier way?

Spoiler

Threes are obvious, fives are obvious, next step is to divide by 7. Done.

Not real hard regardless of age to divide by all odd numbers until reaching the halfway point. But perhaps that's not the obvious way to solve this simply?

Golf wrote:

MinnesotaMyron wrote:

Spoiler

93 and 99 I can cast out threes to quickly see they aren't prime, but what's the quick way to know that 91 isn't? Maybe (49x2)-7? Is there a trickier way?

Spoiler

Threes are obvious, fives are obvious, next step is to divide by 7. Done.

Not real hard regardless of age to divide by all odd numbers until reaching the halfway point. But perhaps that's not the obvious way to solve this simply?

IronNeck wrote:

Golf wrote:

MinnesotaMyron wrote:

Spoiler

93 and 99 I can cast out threes to quickly see they aren't prime, but what's the quick way to know that 91 isn't? Maybe (49x2)-7? Is there a trickier way?

Spoiler

Threes are obvious, fives are obvious, next step is to divide by 7. Done.

Not real hard regardless of age to divide by all odd numbers until reaching the halfway point. But perhaps that's not the obvious way to solve this simply?

Spoiler

Your method is fine. You only need to test numbers (at most) up to the whole square root of the number. That would mean up to 9 in this case, which is divisible by 3, which was already tested. So 7 is literally the last prime divisor one has to look at. And voila, 13*7= 91

Golf wrote:

MinnesotaMyron wrote:

Spoiler

93 and 99 I can cast out threes to quickly see they aren't prime, but what's the quick way to know that 91 isn't? Maybe (49x2)-7? Is there a trickier way?

Spoiler

Threes are obvious, fives are obvious, next step is to divide by 7. Done.

Not real hard regardless of age to divide by all odd numbers until reaching the halfway point. But perhaps that's not the obvious way to solve this simply?