Fuck I'm really confused. Can anyone help?

but R(1,11) != 112 tho ;D

Well..
The assumption of Real Operations has nothing to do with pattern recognition. You could equally say the answer is 1111.

Genius is a loaded word, and I doubt Genius can be tested outside of its application.

we don't need your practical and rational attitude around here. this site is just for people who feel they need the approval of strangers from the internet.

fuck off nerds

This is a nonsense... Just like questions of the type : 1,2,3,4,5,x what will be x? ... It can be proven that x can be any number you want... It just depends on the author...

111

Not enough information, there are too many possible patterns and the terms aren't necessarily rigidly defined. Is the "=" sign symmetrical? If so, 11 = 1. But that's just assuming. If it's assymetrical, what other patterns could it follow? And really these are innumerable. Maybe the function multiplies the first by 11, and the answer is 121. Maybe the function just repeats the input, and the answer is 1111. Maybe it repeats the final digit in the number, and the answer is 111.

Pattern recognition and application is only as effective as the amount of input we get. If we had millions of examples we could draw more accurate conclusions as to the answer, but as it stands all we can postulate are theories. This is a decent analogy to the progression of science, where with only a little research we can conceive of many many explanations for the data. But further testing eliminates certain possibilities.

Also this illustrates the fundamental flaw of induction, that it's own reasoning is necessarily circular.

Also this highlights the fact that I am on way too much adderal and may die within the hour

1 = 11
2 = 22
3 = 33
4 = 44
5 = 55
6 = 66
11 = 1 (because equality is a symmetric relation)

I honestly hope that was just a typo

10x + x where x=11
10(11) + 11
110 + 11
121

You can't be certain that equality is symmetrical. Actually, the equals sign in mathematics is more similar to the bi-implication symbol in logic. But then you don't even know the exact nature of the system. Think about it this way, what if the numbers aren't numbers but are instead characters? Then the function looks more like x = x+x.

You don't know for sure faggot

you fucking math fags ITT are so insufferable

this is a fucking shitpost thread, why can't you stop being autistic for a moment?

user, set theory for breakfast doesn't sound very nutritious

1111 ? Maybe ?

1 through 6 then suddenly 11 out of fucking no where. What monkey can't count to 7? Also 11=1 since it was defined in the first line.

Assumptions my friend. You need to qualify your conclusion. The underlying and rarely discussed philosophy of math would be that it is assumed that the overall evaluation of any formula evaluates to a true proposition.

For example: when given an equation like 4 + x = 10, we assume four things. 1.The formula is satisfiable 2.the overall evaluation of the formula is logically equivalent to "true" 3.the number represented are consistent with traditional mathematics, and 4.traditional mathematics provides the exact same answer consistently.

Thus, if any of these assumptions prove to be false, then any answers reached are simply undefined by math.

So to be totally consistent, any conclusion you reach would technically not stand by itself. Conclusions reached in mathematics remain only guaranteed by the confines of mathematics. Every problem you ever solve in math, science, politics, anything at all is indefinite and is possibly totally meaningless.

What I mean to say is, kill yourself faggot.

Depend on what 0 = ?

No it does not

Yes it does faggot, if 0 = 00, then the answer is 1111, if 0 = 0 then the answer is 121.

Really? Then tell me what is x in 1,2,3,4,5, x , because I say it ca be literally any number..

oeis.org/search?q=11,22,33,44,55,66&language=english&go=Search

There's no correct answer.

This

It's, 1111, of course. Take what's on the left side and copy it two times to the right side.

You could claim it's 121, but that would make the pattern more complicated.
1. You'd need to assume that the symbols are numbers. In contrast, ´1111' works for any symbols.
2. You'd need to use multiplication, which is more complex operation than to just copy values.
3. All the symbols in your answer are not identical, unlike in the examples and in the proposed 11 = 1111.

And you're always supposed to pick the simplest explanation.

But 00 is the same as 0

The simplest explanation is that the relation is symmetric and thus 11 = 1

The answer should be 1.
Without stating any inherent rules here, it could also be 121 as well as 1111. You would have to know what 10 equals in order to confirm one of the latter 2 answers so my assumption would be that the answer is 1.

Not enough information given. With what we see in that pic it could be:
121
1111
112
1
All of these answers apply depending on what operations you apply to the first number to get the second number, and there are several different operations that will lead to the same answers shown in the forst couple “equations”. Get this Facebook brainlet normie meme shit off muh Veeky Forums.

t. someone who failed IQ tests

If there are multiple possible answers, always choose the simplest explanation

Only correct answer ITT; rest are brainlets.

There is nothing newly defined, you could with that logic also ask if a 6 is really a 6 has some other value that is newly defined. This logic would make the whole test pointless.

Well What is 10 then?

its 1 you stupid fuck
it cant be 121 because some shithead gonna cherry pick muh 1111 so we go with the first argument 1 = 11 because its the only way to solve it

You don't get to ask questions. If that is supposed to be your answer, it is wrong

Wrong.

In all the examples, the left side of ´=' has less symbols than the right side. Thus the simplest explanation assumes that there won't be an exception to this rule.

Your problem is that you use the interpretation of ´=' that was taught to you in school. You're supposed to take puzzles like this precisely like they are presented to you: Symmetry is not implied anywhere.

1111

141 on a psychiatrist administered test. So no. Also the simplest explanation is that its the first number written out twice to get the second number, but thats just retarded. The only correct answer is that there are multiple answers, we cant narrow it down to one “best” answer without more information.

But 1/=11
And 2/=22
This is wrong. It's all wrong.

Stop conflating semantics with mathematics.

Why not 111?

>shit literally says 1 = 11

>HURR DURR 11 = 112
what the FUCK is wrong with you fucking BRAINLETS

>IQ tests
Psychobabble

found the engineering tards

A relation MUST be symmetric for it to actually be a relation ie x MUST equal x

if it is not a relation you cannot use the equality sign

Iz 121 giv me nobel plz

1

>hurr there's no point in trying to continue the pattern because it's possible the pattern could be broken/nonexistent
look, it's just a logic puzzle
the only point is to show how good your pattern recognition skills are, or to improve them

>set theory
a new brainlet has been discovered

-1/12

>symmetry is reflexive
>all relations are reflexive
>notations have intrinsic properties

fuck off you imbecile
there are no canonical patterns that you can extrapolate from finite sequences, no matter how much you delude yourself into thinking "hurr muh pattern recognition"

It's not '1'. The numbers on the left column is obviously multiplied by '11' to come up with the values on the right column.
>1 (11) = 11
>2 (11) = 22
>3 (11) = 33
>4 (11) = 44
>5 (11) = 55
>6 (11) = 66
So...
>11 (11) = 121

Good fucking Lord... Common Core, everybody. If you're analyzing for patterns, it helps to find what is common among all the numbers/groups of numbers with enough information, then use what you've found out to solve the one without enough info. In this case, it seems that from '1 = 11' to '6 = 66', dividing the numbers on the right column with the numbers on the left column will always yield '11'; when you multiply the numbers on the left with '11', you get the same values on the right column. So you multiply '11' with '11', as the multiplier '11' is what's common with the entire group of numbers, and you get '121'.

you don't deserve a thoughtful answer

Cancer removed

it's over the top, intentionally
notice the ugly ass irregular fonts? the bright distracting colors?
it's mocking, it's self-aware. don't touch it.

The beauty of 90's web design.

Clearly it's eleventy eleven

Isolate these retards.
Reflexivity in equality doesn't apply to every field.

Symmetricity*

20
20
8

gg ez

8

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve 11=?

11 is an odd number.
Open code
11 has the unique representation 11 = 1^2 + 1^2 + 3^2 as a sum of 3 squares.
Open code
11 is the 5th Lucas number (L_5).
Open code
11 is the number of integer partitions of 6 (p(6)).
Open code
11 and 13 form a twin prime pair.
11 is a Sophie Germain prime, since 2 11 + 1 = 23 is also prime.
Open code
The ring of integers of the field Q(sqrt(-11)) has unique factorization, and e^(π sqrt(22))≈2508951.9983 is an associated near-integer.

48

the interpretation of = is the same in all models of set theory, and it is ALWAYS symmetric
sounds like you need to study set theory, sweety

name a single one where it doesn't apply
i'll wait

b-but it's got all the essential axioms for a well-balanced, incomplete theory of mathematics ;~;

yeah there is
It's the one i'm thinking of heh gotcha ;v)

not well defined
also nonsense
if they used f of x and wanted you to find the function, they should have used it

It's just 8 because there is no equals sign on the ends of the first two lines and no addition signs linking the first two lines together and to the third line.

If we assume that 1=11=121 then wouldn't
121 be the correct answer ?

You could also have 1=11=1111.

So 11=1 is technically correct but since the problem clearly demonstrates the growth
aspect of the series 121 or 1111 are actually better answers.

1111 is not a good answer unless you permit trick question style.
That is, a=aa, b=bb... etc, could be used to pose that type of pattern.

So 121 is the best answer, but the problem is
arguably overall too tricky and/or ambiguous.

You all failed. The solution is that the test is obviously bullshit and if you spend time thinking about it you're not a genius.

1

1111 you're obviously concatenating the number to itself

77 fuckers the answer is 77

1 does not equal 11
This is just made up bullshit

But the Lagrange polynomial for this sequence is 2x-1. What are they doing here?

It's obviously 9 you retards

Meme Doggo is the best you fucking negro

> some mathematical functions are objectively simpler than others

literally a raging mongoloid

Nevermind, they randomly chose 217341