Same here, didn't know my 21 times tables either unfortunately. Maybe schools should teach us times tables all the way up to 100, instead of stopping at 12...
@@TheSpotify95 I actually got to the same solve he did. I started by multiplying things as close to 100 as I could get and then multiplied by 9. I got 3*7*5=105 105*9=145. 145 is 21 too high, but since 3*7=21, just subtract 1 from 5*9 and you’re golden.
If you're used to countdown it's pretty trivial to spot that 50X20=1000 Closest thing to get you in that neighbourhood with the available numbers is 45X21which is 945. Now you need to take away 21 from that 945, so you just subtract one before multiplying, taking away a 21 to get 924.
Got it slightly differently: 9+2 = 11 11*7 = 77 (5-1)*3 =12 12*77 = 924 Simple route - noticing it's a multiple of 3, then 308 is even, and so is 154. Which leaves 77*12, we have 7, and so only need to make 11 and 12 from the remaining numbers, which are (9+2) and (5-1)*3, or alternatively, (9+3) and (5*2)+1. The second pair is probably more obvious to most people, my brain just saw the 11 as a sum straight away and got stuck!
he smiled because he got a question right and you lot are proper going hard calling him names without knowing the bloke, no faith in humanity these days smh
You know.. from reading your 34x9=306 I noticed that if you take out the zero it equals 9.. And then randomly trying to figure out a pattern I stumbled on two digit numbers consecutive together.. times 9 will always equal 9 if you take out the zero 12x9=108 23x9=207 34x9=306 56x9=504 78x9=702 I have no idea tbh, I haven’t used a calculator on most of these but I just used the pattern and guessed it worked
@@reubenregler4663 all multiples of 9 will add to 9. You’re adding 11 each time, which when multiplied by 9 gives 99, which is why the 0 is staying constant
@@eoghanspillane261 Yeah woops.. The thing I forgot to mention with the pattern.. is whatever number they start with.. is the first number you start for your +9 23= Starts with 2 = 2+7= 9 = 2+0+7 And so forth for the double digits in consecutive order, you just add the zero in. Don’t know if it’s a thing but I thought it was cool lol Not 12 though. Lol
@@reubenregler4663 Most numbers don't follow that rule, only a handful really do because of chance, but once you cross like 90 or something no numbers do. The rule about 9s is pretty well known though. It's something I tend to try and do when I'm solving these puzzles and there's a way to get 9.
@@shalimarlake7852 it only applies to those double digit numbers. I’m just saying you see 23x9 or 34 or 56… You know that the only thing you need to work out for those is (whatever it starts with) + X = 9 As I said, not sure if it was known as I didn’t know it. Did you know it?
This took me on a journey of figuring out how to tell if a number is divisible by 7 or 11. (Divisibility by three is just adding up the digits and seeing if the sum is divisible by 3, and divisibility by four is just dividing by 2 twice.) Apparently you can test for divisibility by 7 if you multiply the last digit by 2 and subtract it from the rest of the digits, and see if that difference is divisible by 7. (So 4*2=8, 92-8=84, 84/7=12.) And you can test for divisibility by 11 by adding every other digit in the number, then add the remaining digits together, subtract one from the other, and if the difference is 0 or divisible by 11, then the original number is as well. (So (9+4)-2=11, but it works for any size of number because something something binomial.)
Once you see it's 132x7 it's not that hard, several ways to do the 132, first I saw is (9+3)x(5x2+1). That being said, seeing Rachel choke on the calculation is not a common occurence!
I effectively did the same: (5 x 9) -1 = 44; 44 x 3 = 132; 132 x 7 = 924. The trick is to work backwards. 924 divides by 7 to give 132; 132 divides by 3 to give 44. Then you just have to get 44 from what remains, which in this case is 5, 9, 2 and 1.
Personally, I multiplied some numbers that looked like it would get close 9 * 7 * 5 * 3 = 945 which is 21 too much, so instead of 9*5 lots of 21 (7*3), we want 9*5 - 1 lots of 7*3 (9*5 - 1) * 7 * 3
I thought it looked intimidating (6 small and a big total usually is, for me !) but then I just did it - it's not too hard. I started by realising it was a multiple of 7 and then seeing what was left (132). As that's a multiple of 3 the rest is pretty simple with the four other numbers !
Tbf it's way easier to go from the smallest denominators: 924 divided by 2 is 462, by 2 again is 231, that's dividable by 3 and you are left with 77 (for easier division you could add 9 and subtract 3 after dividing). Simplifying 924 you have 2x2x3x7x11. 3 and 7 are given, so what is left to do is to figure out the way to make 44 with 5, 9, 2 and 1.
It definitely looked harder than it was. I did the same kind of thing as you, i.e. saw it was divisible by 7, then tried to get 132 (9x5x3-2-1). It's essentially the same as Dylan, just he did the multiplication in a different order, enabling him to subtract the 3 differently
I worked this out before I watched it. Took me longer than 30 seconds but my way was different. 9+2 =11 x 7 = 77 5 - 1 = 4 x that by the 77 = 308 x 308 by 3 makes 924.
I don't see anything wrong with Adam's comment. The numbers are clear to see in the thumbnail and it's at the early stages of the video too. He's not claiming he solved it quickly.
9 + 2 + 3 = 923. 1 Away! Seriously though, this lad is super smart! I am grateful for guys like Dylan as it puts my own mind into happy and relieved perspective! Me with my failed GCE result from collage! Have a happy life Dylan and Family! With Best Wishes! Cheers - Mike.
Tom, I know! Hence the wink. But if Mike was going to suggest a solution relying on concatenation that was one off the target, he might as well go that extra mile and have a solution relying on concatenation that was on the button...
was actually quite easy if u worked backwards, 924 was dividable by 7 to get 132, that was dividable by 3 to get 44, then I just needed to get too 44 with the 5, 9, 1 and 2, 5x9-1
it's easy if you divide the big numbers and maybe try and avoid intermediate prime numbers in trying to get to the answer, my 2 pence worth was: 11(9+2) x 3 = 33, 5-1 = 4, 4 x 33=132, 132 x 7 = 924
a lot of hateful and angry comments on here for absolutely no reason, must be jealous. if i was as smart as this kid, i'd probably be a little smug about it too. good on you, dylan
These kinds of otherwise baffling answers are much easier to spot if you work backwards. Start with the goal and see what you can divide it by to get a more manageable number. In this case 924 ÷ 21 only uses up the 7 and the 3 and leaves you with the much easier 44. Of course you still have to be a maths wiz, but this'll help with some of the easier ones.
Took me more than 30 seconds, but I did get it. I saw that 924 = 3*308. Then I figured out how to get 308 with the remaining numbers. 9*5*7 = 315. I can get to 306 by taking away 9 so 9*(5*7-1)+2 = 308. Thus (9*(5*7-1)+2)*3 = 924.
How about: (5+7-1) x (9^2 + 3) = 11 x (81+3) = 11 x 84 = 924 Took me ages to come up with a novel solution, though. Obviously, on Countdown you are not compelled to use ALL the numbers, then (Dylan didn't use the 2).
No, but on _Countdown_ you are compelled to use only the basic arithmetical operations, so no exponents allowed, I'm afraid, and no using numbers twice (which would obviously make the no exponents rule moot if it weren't enforced). That said, you can get 84 within the rules by doing the following: 5 - 1 = 4 4 x 3 = 12 12 x 7 = 84 That leaves you the 9 and the 2 with which to make 11.
And it's against the rules, I'm afraid. You can only solve numbers puzzles on _Countdown_ using the basic arithmetical operations (dividing, multiplying, adding, and subtracting), with whole numbers at each step, and without using exponents.
