$1 = 100¢ = (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2 = $0.01 = 1¢

Of course, Mike knew that this was nonsense and that his money had disappeared because of the 6:5 rule at the BJ tables. Explain the error in the evil casino executive's argument. Use Spoiler tags.

Michael Shackleford rule: If your name is Michael Shackleford then we know you can solve this! Please allow a little time to see who else in the forum comes forward first with the correct answer.

^{2}(whatever ¢

^{2}means -- square cents?). Then, he tries to make 100¢

^{2}and $

^{2}0.01 equivalent by stating (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2. The problem here is that while $1 = 100¢, $

^{2}1 does not equal 100¢

^{2}... you must also square the conversion ratio, so $

^{2}1 = 10000¢

^{2}.

Just like 1 yard = 3 feet, but 1 sq. yard = 9 sq. feet.

You, Mr. Casino Exec, should focus more on keeping the free play and RFB coming, and let the logicians worry about the math!

Quote:JoemanThe trouble here begins when he squares the monetary unit. (10¢)^2 does not equal 100¢, but rather 100¢^{2}(whatever ¢^{2}means -- square cents?). Then, he tries to make 100¢^{2}and $^{2}0.01 equivalent by stating (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2. The problem here is that while $1 = 100¢, $^{2}1 does not equal 100¢^{2}... you must also square the conversion ratio, so $^{2}1 = 10000¢^{2}.

Just like 1 yard = 3 feet, but 1 sq. yard = 9 sq. feet.

You, Mr. Casino Exec, should focus more on keeping the free play and RFB coming, and let the logicians worry about the math!

This is the correct answer. I thought this puzzle was cute but apparently it was too easy for this forum.

Of course, almost anything short of proving the Riemann Hypothesis might be too easy for this forum.

I enjoyed it. I think I've taken too many courses/tests over the years where getting the units to work out is half the battle of solving the problems.Quote:gordonm888This is the correct answer. I thought this puzzle was cute but apparently it was too easy for this forum.

Of course, almost anything short of proving the Riemann Hypothesis might be too easy for this forum.

Here's another one along the same vein: The Whiskey & Water Diet

A 1.5 oz (44 ml) shot of whiskey contains about 100 calories. If I mix that with 2.75 oz (81 ml) of ice water, I have a cocktail that is 125 ml in volume at 0°C. Assuming a specific gravity of 1, 125 ml = 125 g.

Everyone knows that the definition of a calorie is the energy needed to heat 1 gram of water 1°C. When I drink this cocktail, my body must expend energy to heat the beverage to body temperature, which is 37°C. This amount of energy would be equal to 125 (g) x 37 (°C) = 4,625 calories!

Remember that the whiskey is only 100 calories (and the ice water is 0). That comes out to a net loss of 4,525 calories per drink. If I am pounding these drinks, why the heck am I not losing weight?

Speaking of flaws, disprove this logic, if you can.

- To find a woman requires an investment of both money and time. In other words women = money * time.
- We've all heard that time = money.
- So, women = money * time money.
- Women = money^2
- We know from bible study (Timothy 6:10), that (the love of) money is the root of all evil. In other words, money = evil^0.5.
- Squaring both sides, money^2 = evil.
- Substituting into equation (4): women = evil

Other than EB, do you agree? If not, where is the flaw?

Wiz, your proof is irrefutable! ;)

Quote:WizardThanks, Gordon, I never saw that problem before. I'll see if my older two kids can find the flaw in it.

Speaking of flaws, disprove this logic, if you can.

- To find a woman requires an investment of both money and time. In other words women = money * time.
- We've all heard that time = money.
- So, women = money * time money.
- Women = money^2
- We know from bible study (Timothy 6:10), that (the love of) money is the root of all evil. In other words, money = evil^0.5.
- Squaring both sides, money^2 = evil.
- Substituting into equation (4): women = evil

Other than EB, do you agree? If not, where is the flaw?

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Then you say money is the root of evil.

That's the problem.

Here's one for you who are oh-so-daring:

A man has a sack of potatoes which total 100 pounds. He's interested in how much water is in the potatoes, so he tests them with a potato-water-testing-machine and discovers they are 99% water and 1% starch (by weight).

He puts them on his porch overnight just to see what will happen. He's a weird, curious feller.

In the morning, he tests them again to see what percentage (by weight) the potatoes are. He discovers they dehydrated a bit and are now 98% water and 2% starch.

How much do the potatoes weigh in whole?

Quote:RS<snip>Here's one for you who are oh-so-daring:

A man has a sack of potatoes which total 100 pounds. He's interested in how much water is in the potatoes, so he tests them with a potato-water-testing-machine and discovers they are 99% water and 1% starch (by weight).

He puts them on his porch overnight just to see what will happen. He's a weird, curious feller.

In the morning, he tests them again to see what percentage (by weight) the potatoes are. He discovers they dehydrated a bit and are now 98% water and 2% starch.

How much do the potatoes weigh in whole?

On the other hand, the weight might have changed because a rat ate some of the potatoes. In this case, the answer is indeterminate.

Dog Hand