Well?

It's either first number plus second number plus previous result
>8 + 11 (+ 21) = 40
or first number times the second number incremented by one
>8 * (11 + 2) = 96

When your equalities are plain wrong, one can interpret the notation to mean whatever you want. You would've said it's 96 if the other guy answered 40. Now take your shit thread back to /v/

Those who have more patternal thinking answer 96
Those who are more straightforward answer 40.

32 you faggots

What if you answer 19

4*1+1=1
5*2+2=12
6*3+3=21
11*8+8=96
Now pissoff.

Get out. Just leave.

What the fuck is this nonsense...

92

That's how it looks if it was to have a 4 + 7, 5 + 8 etc, so as a pattern

the first number represents the number of your step.
the 2nd number represents the number you add to the step.

so:

(n+3).n+n=answer.

step 8 is

(8+3).8+8=96.

q.e.d why questions like this are autism

>he doesnt notice the terms are just multiply one number followed by summing the product with the number you used for multiplication

Fuck off and fuck you.

5->12=7, 12->21=9, 21->32=11

51

There are MANY ways to interpet this question.

14+26= 38+x? x=2.
see? i just multiplied from top down and found the missing as two.

Why are any of you multiplying?

I know you're baiting but there's a pattern in the terms when using multiplication, too bad you're too stupid to see more than one interpretation. I forgot it's burger hour.

Because you can do it like that, you can add them, too.

2+5=12 is false, if we interpret the symbols as usual.
The + symbol can then be interpreted as any binary operation that explains the pattern.

I'm not baiting. I got into a lengthy debate with a relative. He says 96. I say 40. I can see why he says 96. He can't see why I say 40.

I say he's doing more than necessary.

because it's facebook-tier like-bait that wants you to use steps that aren't actually mentioned to solve questions that don't make sense if you look at them by themselves

Pro-tip: Einstein would've said it's 96, 40 is for basic bitches who can't deal with math.

52.

40

76

42

Insecure faggot.

-1/12

96

>1+4 = 5
Correct
>2 + 5 =12
Incorrect
>3 + 6 = 21
Incorrect
>8 + 11 = 19

1 + 4*1 = 5
2 + 2*5 = 12
3 + 3*6 = 21
8 + 8*11 = 96

96 || 52

>4*1+1=1

this guy knows what he's talking about

92

disagree

same as I got

Yep, 96.

its 96

realy diffucult how you only have to figgure out that small one thing that wasn't shown.

40

40

92

duh

it's 3.14158 clearly

retard

this

8*12

Isnt the pattern
1 * (4+1)
2 * (5+1)
3 * (6+1)
8 * (11+1) = 96

Haven't seen it posted yet.

No, the pattern is that they are exactly the elements of the function

F={ ((1,4),5) , ((2,5),12), ((3,6),21), ((8,11),-1/12) }

So obviously the answer is -1/12

>m-muh arbitrary pattern

It's the sum of all the numbers, you just need to fill in the blanks for the intervening numbers.

5+7 = 12, 9 + 12 = 21, etc.

40 all day you retards. Took me once glance. Literally 5-8 seconds of thought

It was already proven by that the answer is -1/12

You dum dumb.

You guys are actually putting more thought into this than whoever made that pic.

>1 + 4*1=5

Yeah that could be the pattern, only there is no reason for you to have added an extra 1 in the first instance or to have multiplied, so you are essentially do the wrong sum. the answer is 40, but 96 is acceptable at a stretch.

Someone please explain how the fuck they got 40.

The answer is clearly 96 you retarded fucks.

the answer if clearly 4 you stupid fucking faggot

>you are essentially do the wrong sum. the answer is 40, but 96 is acceptable at a stretch
that's not how things work. "looks better" is not something valid

It's 40.

40 of course !

The two numbers plus the previous answer.
1+4+0 = 5
2+5+5= 12
3+6+12= 21
8+11+21= 40

It's what I saw real quick, the 96 answer is also interesting.

why some jerk think that answer is 40? are you ok? and do you have brain? seriously

>retardation
40

>retardation

-1/12

Besides 40 and 96, you can get 52 also.

1 + 4 * 1 = 5
2 + 5 * 2 = 12
3 + 6 * 3 = 21
8 + 11 * 4 = 52

Eh, isn't 96 the proper solution, occam's razor and all that (because it doesn't involve the previous result)?

>occam's razor

Occam's razor would indicate that the answer is -1/12 as showed.

Obviously given that it is a function that just exists out there in the universe. No method was used at all, there is not even a hypothesis. That function was just invoked.

>Occam's razor would indicate that the answer is -1/12 as showed.

I would say the rule "first plus first times second" is simpler than defining this set.

I think occam's razor is for 96.

It's this. Normies btfo.

>simpler than defining this set.

What set is being defined? None. This set just exists out there in the universe.

For all we know I had a stroke, my head fell to the keyboard and hit just the exact keys that wrote that set. Then when I was able to get a hold of myself I looked at it and said
>Hey, that's pretty good

(4 x 1) + 1 = 5
(2 x 5) + 2 = 12
(3 x 6) + 3 = 21
...
(8 x 11) + 8 = 96
...
a + b = (a x b) + a

40 methinks.

32 because I saw a pattern in the results.
Every result is the previous one plus the difference between the last two results plus 2.
12=5+7
21=12+9
32=21+11

67 by vacuous truth.

Preceding statement was false. Vacuous truth applies.

76

Same here, except I saw the 96 answer first because I thought assumed it would be harder.

In fact if it were on a test, I would put all of the possible answers.

>This set just exists out there in the universe.

That's not how maths works. You can't just say "the proof exists out there in the universe, so it's true" and the like.

If you need to explicitly list the set (which you do), then it is more complex than "first plus first times second".

>Every result is the previous one plus the difference between the last two results plus 2.
>expect for the first case where it doesn't work

That's 4 characteristics for 4 equations. With that, you can actually select any arbitrary result as with But it's the incorrect result per occam's razor.

>1+4+0 = 5

Where did you get the 0 from? Or did you just arbitrarily define it?

96 is the most correct answer.

40

How many "geniuses" has Veeky Forums trolled the shit out of?

19 here. I swear some of you have two standard deviations below normal IQ.

19

you got every other problem wrong though

What is before the first case (1+4)?
I didn't look deep into this because I'm a scrub at math and I failed linear algebra and all the other first year courses so there's not much to look into imo. Could you tell me why my solution doesn't work?

/thread

40

Well, OP, you got problem 1 correct, 2 and 3 wrong, and you apparently didn't know the answer to problem 4, so you just drew in a question mark.
You really are retarded.

96

being this retarded
literal epsilon tier
work in the sewers

What did you say? I can't understand what you're saying because your English skills are complete ass.

[math]a_{n+1}=a_{n}+(n+(n+3)) \\n \geq 2 [/math]

Both answers work.

>can't understand
>can't understand three by three lines

1+4=5
2+5=7+5
3+6=12+9
8+11=19+21

40