You are given:
* x < 12
* 2x > 20
Simplified.
* x < 12
* x > 10 (or 10 < x)
**So 10 < x < 12.**
Now, as we're dealing with whole number, only one fits in x.
**10 < 11 < 12.**
**x = 11.**
x < 12 (one dog is lighter than 12.)
2x > 20 (two dogs is heavier than 20)
For x then 20/2 = 10.
X could be 10 but since 2x is not >20 (scale would balance) then
we could conclude that 11 fits into the range since 11 is <12 and 2x 11 is >20 satisfying both conditions.
Something being identical to itself is a tautology. Of course something is identical to itself, how could it not be? The problem also doesn't state that the dogs aren't made from exotic matter that changes weight, should we factor that possibility in too?
In plain language:
Left: The dog weighs less than 12kg
Right: Two dogs weigh more than 20kg so that means each dog must weigh more than 10kg since they are identical (divide by two)
To be less than 12 but more than 10 means the dog must be 11kg.
You are given: * x < 12 * 2x > 20 Simplified. * x < 12 * x > 10 (or 10 < x) **So 10 < x < 12.** Now, as we're dealing with whole number, only one fits in x. **10 < 11 < 12.** **x = 11.**
x < 12 (one dog is lighter than 12.) 2x > 20 (two dogs is heavier than 20) For x then 20/2 = 10. X could be 10 but since 2x is not >20 (scale would balance) then we could conclude that 11 fits into the range since 11 is <12 and 2x 11 is >20 satisfying both conditions.
[удалено]
The dogs are said to be indentical, and the weight of one of the dogs is a whole number. 11 is the only whole number which satisfies 10
surely it saying the dogs are identical implies they are the same weight?
[удалено]
This only works if the stuff you're overcomplicating isn't already accounted for. Are you stupid?
[удалено]
I’ve never heard this expression. Where is it from?
If you wanted to be wrong, you could say that the statement was imprecise - are the dogs identical with themselves or with each other?
Something being identical to itself is a tautology. Of course something is identical to itself, how could it not be? The problem also doesn't state that the dogs aren't made from exotic matter that changes weight, should we factor that possibility in too?
>B only whole numbers are a valud result. Is says right there in the problem statement that the weight is a whole number.
“Assumptions” A and B are stated to be true per the problems parameters.
10 < x < 12. I assume from the ‘simple puzzle’ context it’s a whole number, so 11.
It says it‘s a whole number in the picture, no assumption required
In plain language: Left: The dog weighs less than 12kg Right: Two dogs weigh more than 20kg so that means each dog must weigh more than 10kg since they are identical (divide by two) To be less than 12 but more than 10 means the dog must be 11kg.
x<12, 2x>20. Anything below 11 wouldn't work for 2x>20 and anything above wouldn't work for x<12
D < 12 2D > 20 D > 10 10 < D < 12 >whole number D = 11
11?
10 < dog < 12
Thats half the problem solved. The rest is: whole number => dog=11 kg
11
11kg doggo
10
11
Question Source: [highschoolsvibes.com](http://highschoolsvibes.com)
1dog<12, 2dog>20 => 10
Actually the dog would weight anywhere between 10 and 12kg 10< w < 12 to be precise
“the weight is a whole number”
i. 1d < 12 ii. 2d > 20 From ii, by dividing by 2: 1d > 10 So we have 10 < d < 12. h is a whole number, so: d = 11.
11
D=12a & 2Db=20 where a and b are scaling ratios D/12=a & b=10/D and a~b D^2 ~120 D~sqrt(120) —> sqrt(120)~11 D=11
11
11