@thenorfolkmafia
active 7 years, 1 month agoForum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It all depends where the poles on the magnet are located .The real magnet will have a magnetic field at its poles, but not at its centre so if you take the iron bar and touch its tip to the magnet’s centre, the iron bar will not be attracted. This is assuming that the magnet’s poles are at its ends. If the poles run through the length of the magnet, then it would be much harder to use this method so we require clarification as to the type of magnet regarding the poles
2 members liked this post.
Well breaking it down , if 140 bottles were sold and a quarter were red then obviously 105 were white and 35 were red. As we know red costs 3 times the amount of it’s white counterpart so we know 35 red bottles were sold for £266 which is the same for the 105 white bottles being 3 times the cost. Therefore 105 white bottles would cost a total of £266 meaning 5 bottles would be priced at £12. 6666666667 which is a monetary impossibility .
1 member liked this post.
Incidentally it’s mathematically impossible for what you have written to be accurate .
1 member liked this post.
£38
1 member liked this post.
Ok answer time……….Auctioneer got 1698 pounds in total and each bidder paid the same amount and my clue stated that they all paid whole pounds…no percentages. The number of bidders was more than 4 but less than 100 so the number of bidders ( who all paid the same in whole pounds) has to be a number above 4 but less than 100 that is divisible by 1698. There is only one whole number between 4 and 100 that is divisible by 1698 and that is 6. 1698 divided by 6 = 283. So 6 bidders each paid £283 for a painting.
Never even saw the question , where did you post it?
IQ is innate intelligence which is supposedly fixed.. define “brightness”. My IQ is between 137 and 142 depending on which of the three IQ tests are to be believed but have a relatively limited general knowledge as it’s acquired. Define “brightness” as it’s too broad a term.
1 member liked this post.
bub although it could have been Rupert according to the milkman
1 member liked this post.
It’s important with any logical deduction to separate circumstantial evidence from actual solid proof or as the courts would say ” the smoking gun” in proving a case either way. We know there is a traveller and a cloaked figure standing next to a pile of bones. We also know that to the right of the cloaked figure (the travellers left) there is a signet ring with “grandfather” written on it and to the left of the cloaked figure there is an old saddle that may or may not have belonged to a wretched donkey at some stage. We also know as the figure speaks that he points to his left ( the travellers right) to where the bones lie which is the same direction as the saddle.
At this juncture there is no evidence of anything, the circumstantial evidence may point to the bones belonging to the donkey as a saddle is in the vicinity but given the weather conditions as mentioned, time elapsed after death it would be like throwing a cat collar on a gravestone stating felix must lurk in there. The location of the bones is simply to distract from the real hardcore evidence which is indisputable … the words of the figure that states
” Brothers and sisters I have none,but that mans father is my fathers son”. Clearly he has no siblings. The last part of the sentence ” my fathers son”..clearly any individual stating that is talking about himself. Therefore he is pointing at the bones stating “that mans father is himself” making the bones the son of the cloaked figure.
Mister Q is indeed correct once again
1 member liked this post.
The answer is I’m afraid none of the above. The answer to the great conundrum of the relationship of the bones to the cloaked figure is simple….. He is the second cousin twice removed from the mothers side.
I shall explain why exactly tomorrow as it’s late so stay tuned
If you were asked how far would it take a motor car to travel x number of miles in x amount of time would your answer be ” Is there any way he could have taken a plane” ? You can apply that daftness to any quiz question. The figure in the cloak has stated he can’t pass unless he answers and I have stated ” assuming all the above is correct” which pretty much negates the possibility he can pass by the very statement.
1 member liked this post.
