847=((50/2-5)*6+1)*7 The little silent exchange between the competitors during 984 was nice to see. Looks like confirming the other guy got it and celebrating, even if it did turn out to be rock paper scissors. This show always has a lovely energy. 725=(6-1)*3*50-25
Can't believe I did the first one this way but I did. 7x5=35, 35-1=34. 34x50= 1700. 1700-6=1694. 1694 / 2 = 847! I knew there had to be an easier way...and there was LOL
As a musician I’m shocked about the last two conundrums, but both are words I’d have considered firmly belonging to the Italian, rather than English, language.
@@mclarenguy22 Barbecue is stolen from the Incas IIRC, and it's all nice to call it a LOANword.... but really it's flat out theft from the whole of Europe all the way back to ancient Latin and Hebrew. Every time I hear a Brit complaining about how the Americans have ruined *THEIR* language I have to ask about Zouth a-FRIKER, Oz and NZ too, besides with LOANwords and lost words (the ones never removed but never used) it's no wonder the OED is the biggest dictionary. And how many loanwords are there from English in many languages? Picture, calculator and Thermonuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile sounds like Pliny the Elder with a bad case of word salad.
Not true. The reason Italian terms are used in music is not that other languages didn't think of translations, but rather that Italian used to be (alongside French) the lingua franca in certain domains including music in Europe. Sheet music was sent from one country to another constantly, so composers and copiers used Italian terms as those were understandable to me everyone. Eventually, these terms formed the commons international musical terminology. Later composers didn't care anymore, by the way. Many felt that their pieces needed specific descriptions in their own languages. Debussy certainly used French words, and I think it was Bruckner who always wrote in German. But this was at the end of the 19th century. A couple of decades earlier, Mendelssohn and his contemporaries had still been using nothing but Italian.
In the first round, I saw both contestants' solution and also had these: 50 + 6 = 56 2 + 1 = 3 56 x 5 x 3 = 840 840 + 7 = 847 50 / 5 = 10 10 x 6 x 2 = 120 120 + 1 = 121 121 x 7 = 847 In the second round, I again saw the contestants' solution, but also had these two based on factoring (41 x 3 x 2^3 = 984): 100 / 5 = 20 20 x 2 = 40 40 + 1 = 41 41 x 6 x 4 = 984 100 x 5 = 500 500 - 6 = 494 494 / 2 = 247 247 - 1 = 246 246 x 4 = 984 And this solution based on a similar idea to the last one: 100 x 4 = 400 400 - 6 = 394 394 / 2 = 197 197 x 5 = 985 985 - 1 = 984 In the third round, I saw both contestants' solution, but it's the only viable one. In the fourth round, I saw Dinos' solution and also had one similar to Elliott's because I was also trying to make such an easy problem more interesting. The difference is that I went up to 6 times the target and divided back in this way: 25 - 1 = 24 24 / 3 = 8 50 + 8 = 58 75 x 58 = 4350 4350 / 6 = 725 I got the conundrum because I've studied music theory and am a huge classical music fan, so I know all the standard tempo markings, and even a few of the unconventional ones (like "adagietto"-I was listening to Mahler's 5th with the famous one just before watching this video).
