Here’s the question:
According to ENG, there are three Gilads in her gan. One’s name is Gilad; one’s name is Elad; and one’s name is Aviad. (They are referred to as “the Gilad whose name is Gilad,” “the Gilad whose name is Elad,” and “the Gilad whose name is Aviad,” respectively. A sample sentence would be: “The Gilad whose name is Aviad had a birthday party in gan today.”)
According to some of ENG’s siblings, there is only one Gilad in her gan. In addition, there is one Elad and one Aviad.
Who do you think is right?
Please show your work…
Obviously ENG is right. If you all don't understand, that's your problem. There is obviously something that ties the three Gilad's together. You all just don't get it.
ReplyDeleteIn lieu of a proof, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteObviously ENG is right
and
There is obviously something
I'm sorry, but we're going to have to remove points for this answer. You did not show your work...
:-)
I may lose points but ENG is still right!!!
ReplyDeleteENG is right
ReplyDelete3*gilad-elad +4 sin(aviad)^2=P35[eng-correct]
ENG is still right
ReplyDeleteMaybe yes and maybe no. But without proof, we just can't accept this...
:-)
3*gilad-elad +4 sin(aviad)^2=P35[eng-correct]
ReplyDeleteYou definitely get points for creativity.
But we're not sure if meaningless equations are acceptable. We're going to have to get back to you on this one.
:-)
3*gilad-elad +4 sin(aviad)^2=P35[eng-correct]
ReplyDeleteYou definitely get points for creativity.
But we're not sure if meaningless equations are acceptable. We're going to have to get back to you on this one.
creativity??
meaningless??
creativity??
ReplyDeleteBut we mean this in the best possible way...
:-)
meaningless??
Well, for example, take the very first term in your equation:
3*gilad
In other words, you're just ~assuming~ that there are three Gilads. But, as my father must have taught me, you can't use the thing that you're trying to prove as part of your proof.
:-)
ok . I give up. you can have it.
ReplyDeletethe answer to 5B is 7.53
the answer to 5B is 7.53
ReplyDeleteThanks.
The only problem is that it's over twenty years too late...
:-)