Hey Veeky Forums.
i have been training for an upcoming IQ test and the questions im getting are out of my autism spectrum
Do you have any way to solve this kind of question or is it just Luck/Turboautism?
What is the fastest way of solving this kind of problem?
PS: The numbers are all random, there is no pattern that could be easily recognized such as the sum of all rows equal the same value or repeating numbers
Make a 10x13 grid. The first row is for numbers 1-10, second row for 11-20 etc
Then, go through each number in this grid and mark the corresponding grid field in the second grid.
At the end one field should be marked twice, and one should be unmarked
why 10x13
that would take too much time, i dont have that much during the test
61 = 6 row 1 column. draw here a circle
at the end there will be empty cells and cells with two circles
>why 10x13
Because 10x12 is not enough for 121 numbers
>that would take too much time, i dont have that much during the test
Then skip the question and come back later
Turbo autism
25 is double, 57 is missing
Only way is to just brute force it.
This, brute force will take 5-15 minutes but is still the quickest way
Certainly if you're not an idiot like me who searched up and to 50 and then decided going backwards from 121 would be a good idea.
brute force is the only way, but you can do it faster by using multiple people (crowdsourcing). Each person checks a different range. For example, if you enlist 12 people they can each check a different decade.
Also, the more eyes, the more likely you'll have somebody randomly spot the duplicate numbers, though the missing number will need an exhaustive search.
this is more a test of memory. brute force is the sure way of doing it, but skimming the numbers is also another. A person with real good memory should be able to recognize a repeating number, about the missing one, i have no clue. maybe a good blackjack player should be able to solve this quickly
Could you use some math tricks?
Like the sum from 1 to 121?
then use the difference between the expected sum and the actual sum to figure out the answer
why not 11 by 11?
Yes, and if it was just one number missing or one number extra, it would directly give you the solution, but this problem makes it slightly harder.
For example, if you sum up the numbers and find out that the sum 60 higher than the expected one, it could be 1 missing and 61 twice, 2 missing and 62 twice, .... 61 missing and 121 twice - so again you would have to check either the numbers from 1 to 61 to find the one missing, or from 61 to 121 to find the one that occurs twice
And additionally you would have to sum up the numbers, which is not easily automizable and quite error-prone if you do it by hand
thats what i was hoping to find here
Because it's more intuitive.
For example, consider searching for 75 in either grid:
In the 7th row 5th column for the 10x13 grid, where is it in the 11x11 grid?
2 back from 77
Well i was able to find 25 twice immediately and then didn't bother with the second half. L337 brainiacs know when to not bother with a problem
>i have been training for an upcoming IQ test
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of an IQ test in the first place?
IQ is something that can be improved. You get smarter withy age or education, an IQ test should tell you how smart you get
Could you solve that with combinatorics?
This is foolish
You can improve the IQ test sure, but the whole point of the IQ test is your base ability to go into unrecognized territory.
Anyone with an IQ of 120 can practice, practice, practice until they get a high IQ test score. Doesn't mean they still aren't ass at topology.
There are without a doubt more optimal ways to bruteforce it but here's how I did:
I've been checking the number from 1 to 39 (in red). It appears that there are only 38, which means 2 things:
> the missing number is here, no need to check 40-121
> the extra number isn't a number between 1 and 39, no need to search it here
Then I've been checking 1 to 20 (in green), count is 20 so the missing number is from 21 to 39. Then I just write those numbers on the right and found the first answer.
Now I just have to check 40-80 in the same way, counted 40 instead of 41, the missing number is in that range so no need to search between 81-121. I check 40-60 and counts 20: the missing number is here because I should count 21 numbers. Now writing them down and finding the answer.
It takes more time to type all this than to do it but that's probably not the way to go for a written test.
you are confusing intelligence with knowledge
knowledge is attainable facts, methods and ideas that can only be learned through specific study.
intelligence is a measure of of easilly you can absorb new knowledge or how easilly you can solve new problems.
so yeah, i might have a high score on IQ but i can't do shit in topology. I could learn about it faster than a IQ 60 pleb.
vice versa, i know a lot of maths, but i suck at adapting my knowledge to useful areas (mental math for example)
IQ tests are the dumbest shit ever
youre intelligence cannot be measured by a few challanges that you couldve solved rather easily or by luck, i wish i wouldnt have to take it but i have to
how do you go about "checking"?
do you count the numbers?
the only way to do it without autistic memory powers seems to be brute force
look for all the numbers from 0-9, then 10-19, 20-29...all the way up.
non-brute force methods require space or for you to be able to do quicksort in place by hand and somehow make that not slower than brute force
Can't I just use an AI to recognize the numbers?
no, youre the AI in an IQ test
No external help
>do you count the numbers?
I put small marks on the numbers I'm searching for (so, 1-39 for the first time), and every five marks I put a mark outside: as the result was 38, the missing number was not in the remaining 83 cases, so I could ignore those. Then when I "double-marked" 1 to 20 I only had to search inside the 39 checked cases.
There must be an optimal way to do it, though..
>i have been training for an upcoming IQ test
wtf is this meme
>couldn't I just use a car in the 100m?
Just did the brute-force method of placing every number into cell, took me 12 minutes. Probably could have done it in 10-11 but it would be very difficult to get much faster than that.
I really like that quicksort method actually. I wonder if it's the quickest sort to do by hand though. Also would definitely not be nearly as fast as brute-force cell filling.
>how to spoil your iq test
just deal with the fact you are a brainlet
What about simple insertion sort? Build up a list by placing elements in their correct position starting with an empty list. It's easy to check missing/multiple elements from there.
Make a table from 0 to 11 (inclusive). Tally up each number in the row corresponding to its leading digit(s). See at a glance which rows have fewer/more than the expected value. Narrow it down from there.
this really got me thinking, and this idea sounds really sexy and cool. why is this not the best?
if you have a god-tier working memory you should be able to read all the numbers in order then spit out the answers you need. so if you can't already do this problem in that way it's testing beyond your level.
I dont understand it.
If you do, pls elaborate
There is a pattern here, it looks like, a lot of the time, sequential numbers appear in the next quadrant (counterclockwise order). Some numbers break it, but the answer is 25 and 57.
Instead of working off of a list of numbers in your head, such as looking for the number 1, then the number 2, then the number 3, etc, you just make a list of the numbers you have found, where the position of the number dictates the value of the number (8 must mark position 8, 55 must mark position 55). Of course, this idea can be tweaked to be a grid, instead of just a one dimensional list. Then, you must populate that list by going row by row, until you have passed each cell once. The number that has to mark the same position twice is the number that shows up twice, and the position that is empty is the missing number.
I think you can just count the number of occurrences of each digit in the ones place.. That seems pretty fast..
There will be 12 0s, 13 1s, 12 2s, 10 of each for the rest. When you get an extra 5, you know the double is one of 5, 15, 25, 35, etc, so up to 10 more searches. When you get short a 7, you know your missing is 7, 17, 27, etc. So up to 10 more checks. You don't care about finding anything in order and you can easily count everything at once using ticks under 10 columns of digits.
10 for each of the rest is wrong because I am retarded.. 12 for the rest.. Method still works otherwise as described. Basically radix sort from CS without any actual sorting. Assuming the double and missing is selected at random, has comparable best and worst cases to normal brute force but should be very fast at checking each cell of you move your eyes down each column vertically because the one's place is mostly aligned.
By one's place I mean right most digit. So the "4" in "24." But I guess that might actually be called the ten's place.. I can't remember.
After a single pass quick pass, you already know which of 12 or 13 numbers is doubled, and which of 12 or 13 numbers is missing. After a second quick pass, you will know the doubled and missing number.
I´m assuming that you are a soon-to-be conscript or about to apply to cadet school/ a police academy. Here´s a tip: IQ is not malleable to any meaningful extent. If you score badly, consider other career options. By studying for a degree, you can make up for possessing an average mind by studying longer hours than every body else, while eventually receiving the same formal educational status as your smarter peers.
im not from the US and i have to take this test
if i fail ill have to take it again, i can just turn 180° and walk away
No you faggot, it's 1 equation with 2 variables. We can't get any further without another equation.