TheChad08

You're right. I didn't add the 9 choose 9. My bad. It is 512. You're still right, I just tried to show it in a less convoluted way.

You're using factors that aren't given to us and over examining the question. What is 1 + 1? Answer is 2 But what if I add to the question (like you) and turn it into 1 half + 1 half. Then the answer would be 1.

Why do people continue to post on a riddle that has obviously been answered already?

I don't think that is the answer.

Get with the times here... It is now BCE. We are moving science away from religion.

Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more issues there are with it. It depends on whether you look at it small scale or large scale. Small scale it appears to be 50% chance because the birth of one child doesn't affect the other. However, if you place a limitation on it, and look at it as a large scale model, then the answer is 1/3 For a large scale model you have 100 families. 25 G-G 25 G-B 25 B-G 25 B-B You know one child is a girl, what are the odds the other child is a girl would be 25/75 (since the B-B are eliminated). However, this is placing limitations and additional information on the question. Like was said, small scale and large scale are contradicting each other

Ummm... I didn't read this entire thread (waste of time), but the issue here is simply a combination/permutation issue. Since it doesn't matter whether the child stated as the girl is the first born or second born, there isn't as many scenarios as the "answer" claims. A child is a girl Possibilities: Girl-Girl Girl-Boy } Permutation of Boy-Girl } the same thing Boy-Boy We can rule out the boy-boy field since there is already the claim that one child is a daughter. What we are left with is Girl-Girl Girl-Boy That is a 50% chance. If they claimed that the FIRST child was a girl, then you can include the permutations and assume the 1/3 chance of the second child being a girl. Problem solved.

I don't get it. What is the "riddle"?

As soon as he said it, I knew it was right.

I don't know how it fits, but your clues make me think it is

Here's what I was thinking

You're right. I messed up with my sizing.

Well, your answer is based upon the assumption that the man can turn sideways while running. If he is facing 'forward' the minimum raindrops is 12,000,000 If he can run while sideways, then the minimum would be 1,000,000 How did you get an optimal*2 of 3,000,000? Should optimal *2 be either 2,000,000 or 24,000,000

I was too slow to edit, but here's why faster is better. No matter how fast or slow you move, the front of your rectangle will ALWAYS hit a rectangle of water with the size of 6x2x1000. It is impossible for you to not hit every water droplet in front of you (assuming equal and even distribution of water droplets). Therefore the only discrepancy is how much water hits the top of your rectangle. The slower you go, the more hits your top. So faster is better.

Think of this in terms of extremes. If you go super fast, you will only get 1 block of rain hitting you. If you stand still, you will get every block of rain hitting you (in that location). Theoretically the faster you move, the less rain should hit you. Now, you should get the same water contact on you whether standing still for one second, or running for one second. Standing still will be more water on top of you (head), while running will be making contact with your chest.

Is this guy even still around since the forum collapse?

You don't think that was implied? Sheesh.

A lot of these are wrong. They are 'grasping at straws' to make them fit. In what situation does the word clip actually mean to unclip something? A possibility could be clip to put things together, but to clip as in to trim, but that isn't an antonym to be specific, it is more of an alternative use. The correct words are resign (which is to step down) and re-sign. The hyphen is important.

How come I gave that answer first but no one quotes me? No love for the chad.

Is it a

Hmmm... I want to say

If that is the correct answer then your original post is wrong. You said 1010, not 101010