pull down to refresh

As yesterday's (hard) puzzle (#741908) hasn't been solved yet (new hint given in #743081), here is a comparatively simpler problem for today.

Solve for x:

Previous iteration: #741908 (unsolved)

So the answers are or

Phew, this took me a while. There goes my workday >:(

reply

when my colleagues ask me why i'm not publishing more, I'll have to tell them some physicist from South Korea has been sending me math puzzles....

reply

When my colleagues ask me why I'm not publishing more, I'll have to tell them I must keep competing minion researchers in check by keeping them busy with math puzzles. If no one publishes, we all win. No? :)

EDIT: as I wrote this, my phone buzzed to tell me I got paid a paper bonus by the university. They haven't noticed anything yet~~

reply

Congrats! My Econ prof friend in Korea told me about publication bonuses. Wish we had those at my institution

reply

They're nice for sure. But incentivises quantity over quality sometimes. Also profs arguing over who can be corresponding author just because of that.

Some unis also are getting absurd with the amounts. Heard of over 200k dollars for a paper in Nature or Science. More the case in China though, i think.

reply

Genius strategy

reply

That’s just as important!

reply

I believe there's two solutions for this, 1 and -1

reply

I concur, but I don’t know how to prove it

reply

log1(37/21)?

reply

Not sure how you got to this expression...

reply

I can't remember how to solve x. (log?)

reply

You can easily check this inequality using , and .

reply

I've been looking at it wrong. Where do you have +, I saw x

I need to replace the lenses in my glasses

reply

Honest mistake ;)

reply

It's pretty obviously 1.

Solution: plug in 1 to verify the answer.

reply

Indeed. But it's not the only solution.

reply