61 replies to this topic

[unreality]

i see why you think that, but...

just because you lose an eye doesnt mean you lose all the other stuff.

there are much less soldiers that lost ALL FOUR than those that lost JUST ONE.


just look at it this way...

70 soldiers lost an eye... so 30 DID NOT lose an eye

75 lost an ear. 25 DID NOT lose an ear

85 lost a leg. 15 DID NOT

80 lost an arm. 20 DID NOT

To lose all 4, you can't "DID NOT" any of those...

so 30+25+15+20 = 90... that means 90 people out of a 100 AT LEAST lost 1 body part.

leaving 10 out of 100 to have lost ALL FOUR

[Adarsh]

total number of injured soldiers 70+75+80+85 = 310

Even if we assume each has 3 injuries even then 10 injuries remain so at least 10 soldiers have all 4 kind of injuries

Thnx,
Adarsh

[dsu]

For those who are getting answers other than 10...

"70 soldiers lost an eye"
That means 30 have not lost any eye, or have good eyes.

"75 lost an ear"
Of those 75, max. 30 can have good eyes, other 75-30 or 45 will not.
Therefore, in the best case scenario, min. 45 have lost both an eye and an ear,
and 55 will have lost single organ only.

"85 lost a leg"
Of these 85, max. 55 can have either-eye-or-ear-loss (and not both-eye-ear), 85-55 or 30 will have eye-ear-leg loss.
So, in the best case scenario, min. 30 (=85-55) have lost all 3 organs, and 70 will have lost 2 organs.

"80 lost an arm"
Of these 80, max. 70 will have lost 2 organs (of eye, ear & leg).
So, in the best case scenario, min. 10 (=80-70) have lost all 4 organs.

Algebraic solutions are neater, shorter but more difficult to explain...

[unreality]

umm quoting myself...

just look at it this way...

70 soldiers lost an eye... so 30 DID NOT lose an eye

75 lost an ear. 25 DID NOT lose an ear

85 lost a leg. 15 DID NOT

80 lost an arm. 20 DID NOT

To lose all 4, you can't "DID NOT" any of those...

so 30+25+15+20 = 90... that means 90 people out of a 100 AT LEAST lost 1 body part.

leaving 10 out of 100 to have lost ALL FOUR

[azdfd]

ok so 85 lost a leg. that leaves 15 who didnt so subtract that from 80 who lost an ear so 65 lost both subtract from 100 and u have 35. do the same for the 70 who lost an ear and you have 35. 35 from one hundred is 65. 65 minus those that lost an arm is 5. 5 is the minimum

[unreality]

ur logic is very mistaken. You should write that math out to see that you are wrong...

[moNAH]

and I wonder

why didn't anyone take into account a simple fact
that 70 soldiers who lost an eye might be doubled,
so 35 soldiers lost 2 eyes, and got counted twice

same with arms, ears, legs

it's all about the way to count
right way or army way =)

so all your math is wrong

[ibrahim_zulu18]

ok 10 is fine but how can u b so sure that all the ten hv lost all 4 parts cos the value asked is minimum and it can b "0" taking that 10 are not injured...

Am i proving u as an a** hole AdMin ???

[uber8792]

the answer of 10 is correct. the solution presented by rookie1ja is using the method of filling pigeonholes and figuring out minimums. all this method does is average out the injuries over the whole group and figuring out, at minimum, how many will be over that average.

the more easily understood explanation has been shown by various others: figuring out the maximum number of people who can't have all 4 injuries by adding up the amount of people who don't have a specific injury.

the problem with this is the fact that averages can be altered by one extremity. f/e. when a job advertisement says the average pay is, lets say, $55 an hour, one would think the job pays a good amount. however, the minimum pay, the pay the person would actually get, could be only $10 an hour, while the owner gets paid $100 an hour.

[SCMc]

If 100 soldiers had 3 injuries, and 10 soldiers had 4 injuries, wouldn't that make
3*100 + 4*10 = 340 injuries?
This does not seem right.

Steve