Can you name the answer to this math problem? by iheartzelda

Operator	Number Value
The lowest positive prime number
Multiply the above number by itself 5 times
Divide this number by 10
Multiply this number by 5
Square this number
Multiply this number by 5
Divide this number by 20
Divide by the 2nd and 3rd prime number added together
Multiply this number by 3
Subtract 15 from this number
Divide this number by 9

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

Fun Math Game Quiz

by iheartzelda

Created Nov 2, 2009 in Science
Game Plays 10,886

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in Science

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in Science

	Kaleb:	Nov 2nd, 2009 at 17:31 GMT	10 points
	2 minutes time limit, maybe?

Comment below threshold: show it

	iheartzelda:	Nov 4th, 2009 at 02:59 GMT	6 points
	I shall change the quiz to read "The lowest positive prime number." Invalid...perhaps. But I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people playing understood what I intended with "The lowest prime number", 2.

	Wade:	Nov 4th, 2009 at 03:50 GMT	22 points
	Prime numbers, by definition, are not negative. There was never anything wrong with the quiz.

	Antithesys:	Nov 7th, 2009 at 06:59 GMT	13 points
	"Multiply (2) by itself 6 times" Okay...1. (22 = 4) 2. (42 = 8) 3. (82 = 16) 4. (162 = 32) 5. (322 = 64) 6. (642 = 128)

	smart_mom:	Nov 7th, 2009 at 21:32 GMT	11 points
	Thank you, Antithesys. I had the same problem...

	Blaise:	Nov 10th, 2009 at 00:45 GMT	4 points
	The invention of the graphing calculator has left me mathematically impaired

	betraisefold:	Dec 1st, 2009 at 05:59 GMT	-3 points
	@Wade....do you have a source for that? I just checked my university text books and they all agree with juju.

	1729:	Dec 6th, 2009 at 05:59 GMT	11 points
	i took Multiply 2 by itself 5 times" to mean 2^5 which is 32 not 64

	marpocky:	Dec 9th, 2009 at 14:27 GMT	3 points
	"Multiply (2) by itself 5 times" Okay...1. (22 = 4) 2. (22 = 4) 3. (22=4) 4. (22=4) 5. (2*2=4). If you want 64, I think there's a better way to say it. You can only multiply 2 by itself once before it becomes 4 and you aren't multiplying it by itself anymore.

Comment below threshold: show it

	marpocky:	Dec 9th, 2009 at 14:33 GMT	13 points
	One last thought: I was promised a "fun" math game. This is pretty much just a handful of operations without any overall goal, theme, pattern, or context.

	arcticbanter:	Dec 14th, 2009 at 22:47 GMT	21 points
	this wasn't so much fun :(

	ppirilla:	Jan 16th, 2010 at 00:54 GMT	3 points
	could use a bit more time, I think. Otherwise an enjoyable exercise.

	Dr_Corndog:	Jan 19th, 2010 at 02:21 GMT	1 point
	Marpocky: "Multiply 2 by itself 5 times" is very clear. Negative numbers are typically not considered when one talks about "prime" numbers. Lower negative numbers ARE smaller, by definition. Finally, "fun" is subjective, and you're entitled to your opinion, but to say this quiz has no theme or pattern is just silly.

	mulv:	Feb 4th, 2010 at 01:15 GMT	5 points
	Marpocky: Here's exactly why negative numbers aren't prime - the definition of a prime number is one such that its only factors are itself and 1. Let's look at -2 right now: (-2)1=-2, but also, 2(-1)=-2 and thus -2 has more factors than just -2 and 1. I also agree with Dr_Corndog, lower numbers are certainly smaller. By your logic, who's to say that 2 is smaller than 4 just because it's lower? Smaller = lower in math.

	cuendillar:	Feb 16th, 2010 at 15:01 GMT	8 points
	I multiplied 2 by itself 5 times. It became 4 every time. Maybe change formulation to 2^5 instead.

	Satchsurfer:	Feb 19th, 2010 at 09:53 GMT	6 points
	Prime numbers have to be natural numbers, in other words, non-negative, so the quiz was fine to start with

	greebles:	Mar 30th, 2010 at 02:47 GMT	2 points
	mulv, that is an invalid logic - let's use the number 2 to demonstrate: 21=2, (-1)(-2)=2. As you can see, flipping signs of factors is not a reason for something not to be prime - the real reason is one of the things that makes maths great: negative numbers were defined as being excluded from being prime, but there isn't a good reason for it!

	Secret_Asian_Man:	Apr 1st, 2010 at 19:44 GMT	2 points
	Yes, prime numbers are a subset of the natural numbers by definition. You can't use factors to explain it.

	Tintinnase:	Apr 12th, 2010 at 18:15 GMT	6 points
	what was the point of this quiz? not much fun at all

	kromclovinfasho:	May 27th, 2010 at 23:31 GMT	2 points
	need more time!

	brainbox_labs:	Jul 19th, 2010 at 12:08 GMT	0 points
	I think the time is just about correct. Programmers, of course, will be faster at this quiz because they have to know the powers of 2.

	ostroffj:	Nov 23rd, 2010 at 19:15 GMT	4 points
	There's more than one definition of "prime". In an arbitrary ring, the primes are the non-units p such that if p divides ab, then p divides a or b. Negatives certainly qualify in the ring of integers. That said, even without "positive" it's obvious what the quiz maker meant.

	BladeGunner:	Oct 31st, 2011 at 00:12 GMT	1 point
	How is someone to realistically "square this number" when the number is 32, without the use of a calculator or writing it down? I mean, I thought this should be able to be done in one's head.