frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Can you get the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8,9 to total 100 just by adding together ?

Debate Information

Can you get the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8,9 to total 100 just by adding together ?

People keep saying it cannot be done but it can .

I posted this question up on different sites in the past at one stage it caused several savage exchanges with a group of mathematicians who got totally cheesed  off and claimed it was insoluble all because they couldn't solve it ; incidentally I've yet to have anyone get the correct solution....


No decimal points or any such methods are used the question is stated simply but yet I’m usually bombarded with a series of further questions , then temper tantrums and sometimes threats of violence 

EmeryPearsonsomeone234BaconToes
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    9+1+8+2+7+3+4+6+5+5+9+1+8+2+7+3+4+6+5+5
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    45 is the physical limit if you can use the numbers once.
    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    You’ve used 20 numbers , why’s that ?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    It’s not but thank you for trying 
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    This is a joke post, but I can do it with the same numbers in an order. 

    You see, there are 9 numbers in the pattern, keep this in mind, as I descend the order.

    There are 9 terms, so 9+9

    Now there are 8 left, so 8+8,

    And So on

    9+9+8+8+7+7+6+6+5+5+4+4+3+3+2+2+1 (Don't add one here, because there is only one left in the sequence!)

    All that = 91, and since there are 9 numbers in the sequence, 91+9=100

    Done....
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @WilliamSchulz

    This is a joke post, but I can do it with the same numbers in an order 

    Its not . You didn’t do it , maybe you need to read it again ?

    Not done 
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    9+1+8+2+7+3+4+6+5+5+9+1+8+2+7+3+4+6+5+5
    You can combine some of them to make the expression shorter, like 1+8 and 2+7
    9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+5+5
    i fart cows
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes

    Seriously it only uses the numbers I to 9 just the once 
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @BaconToes

    Seriously it only uses the numbers I to 9 just the once 
    So do you want 1-9 only used once to make 100? Not possible. 
    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Ohhhh, I get it, nevermind
    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    The closest thing I found was: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/65176.html
    Seems impossible, you know the answer?
    i fart cows
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes

    Thats it , and of course it’s possible 
    EmeryPearson
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @WilliamSchulz

    This is a joke post, but I can do it with the same numbers in an order 

    Its not . You didn’t do it , maybe you need to read it again ?

    Not done 
    I meant that what I typed was a joke in response to this real cause. I didn't mean any offence, I see no possible way to use the numbers once and simply add them into 100.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @WilliamSchulz

    Thats fine William and apologies , it can be done it’s pretty neat but requires some lateral thinking
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @WilliamSchulz

    Thats fine William and apologies , it can be done it’s pretty neat but requires some lateral thinking
    That being said, do you know of any conclusive evidence that supports the numbers equaling 100?
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    No, if you limit yourself to Nine Whole Numbers 1-9, and then limit yourself to addition, it is not possible to reach 100. 

    You can physically show this using tallies or physical objects, as were dealing with small whole numbers.
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Here's the best that I have

    1+2+3+4+5+6+7+(8*9) = 100, but that involves multiplication and not addition.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Dee the term number is different to the term digit.

    in the number 12 the digit 1 is the number 10.

    you think you're being smart because you're using english wrong to out-cunning math genius but in the end the math genius always wins.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:
    Can you put a link to the answer somewhere???

    @Dee
    The closest thing I found was: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/65176.html
    Seems impossible, you know the answer?

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson

    No, if you limit yourself to Nine Whole Numbers 1-9, and then limit yourself to addition, it is not possible to reach 100. 

    It is , making you wrong 

    You can physically show this using tallies or physical objects, as were dealing with small whole numbers.

    Indeed ?  So no solution ? 


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @WilliamSchulz

    It requires a bit of lateral thinking another poster on here is on the right track 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    Im not trying to be smart or funny it’s a great question that frustrates the best of them , why are you always looking for fight ?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  

    @anonymousdebater

    Yes we do but only once 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes

    Will post it up after another couple of days as it’s worth thinking about as it requires some serious lateral thinking 
    BaconToes
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @anonymousdebater

    Actually you’re on the right track as you’ve started to think laterally another bit of lateral thinking may get you there 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  

    @anonymousdebater

    I will let it run another day or so and then a reveal 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Dee because the mechanism by which you fool is assuming that the word 'number' is, by smart lateral thinkers, going to be interpreted as 'digit', which is absolutely incorrect.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    what you are trying to say is beyond me but no doubt makes sense to you 
    someone234
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Second Guess: Set the numbers as double digits with one as the leading term.

    10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19 = 145

    Now use the single digits away from zero and add > 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 > 45

    Subtract the two 145-45 = 100
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Dee

    No, logically, it is not possible.

    You would have to add another function for it to work.

    Like I said, you can show this, as these are small Real Number

    I
    II
    III
    IIII
    IIIII
    IIIII I
    IIIII II
    IIIII III
    IIIII IIII
    45

    You cannot increase the number of tallies, addition cannot result in the sum being greater than its components. 

    IF you add another function, you can get it to work.


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson

    It is possible it requires lateral thinking 
    EmeryPearsonAlexOland
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -   edited March 2018
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson

    Yes I know that thank you 
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Then you've admitted your claim is false.

    The set of natural numbers 1-9 cannot equal to 100 if your limited to the function of addition.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson

    Then you've admitted your claim is false.

    Did I indeed ? Where exactly did I “ admit “ that ?

    The set of natural numbers 1-9 cannot equal to 100 if your limited to the function of addition.

    That makes you incorrect again , maybe you should actually read the question again ? 
    EmeryPearsonAlexOland
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    You can provide no evidence and can be demonstrated to be false.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson Focus on the semantics of 'number' and 'digit'.

    He has no case if you do this.
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    I already have by specifically referring to 'natural numbers'.


    He labels
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    As numbers.


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson

    You can provide no evidence and can be demonstrated to be false 

    I
    certainly can but I choose carefully who I give it to 
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Even if true, that still leaves you unable to provide evidence. Argument from ignorance.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    Oh dear , still no solution old buddy ?

    I didn’t know you and Emery Peahead were buddies ? 
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    That still leaves your claim fallacious.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Dee I could copy and paste one of the solutions form what BaconToes posted but that's cheating.

    I also know it's not a real solution as you used the word 'numbers' which renders the trick futile.
    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson

    That still leaves your claim fallacious.

    That still leaves your claim fallacious.
    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @someone234


    still no  solution buddy ? 
    EmeryPearson
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Dee I am not your buddy.
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    If my claim is fallicious you should be able to at least name the fallacy I am guilty of. But you are unable to do so.

    Either way, this doesn't change that your making an argument from ignorance, and that your claim has been throughly refuted.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    Just when we were getting on so well , in fairness you certainly know how to hold a grudge 
    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @EmeryPearson


    I dont  mean to be patronising ...... that’s means I don’t want it to appear I’m talking down to you , but I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about 


    EmeryPearson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch