... add the last two digits of your birth year to the age you will turn on your birthday this year (2011, for any time travellers). It tells you the answer will be 111.For me, born in 1982 and turning 29 in October, this would be 82 + 29 = 111. Try it with your own details...
It works!
But how?
To complete this task, you need to know two pieces of information: the last two digits of your birth year, and the age you will turn this year.
Your birth year is easy- just take the two digits off the end: for me, it's 82.
You probably know your own age, but if we're going to figure out how this works, we need to think about it in a different way. To find out your age knowing only the year you were born in and what year it is now, you could subtract your birth year from this year. Using my info, that'd be...
2011 - 1982 = 29
... which I can confirm is correct!
The thing is, we're only supposed to be using the last two digits of the year, so lets try...
11 - 82
That gives us a strange value: -71. But consider that the leading two digits of the years we're using are different: 20 and 19 respectively, and remember that this is because we're in different centuries: a century is 100 years, so add this on and what do we get? 29!
So to find out the age this year of anyone who was born during the previous century using only the last two digits of the year, we could do the following:
Age = 11 - the last two digits of their birth year + 100
This looks a bit clumsy, so I'm going to use the letter 'x' to represent 'the last two digits of their birth year':
Age = 11 - x + 100
Lets clean it up further: We start off with 11, take something from it, and then add on 100. Why not deal with those two numbers at the same time? If I start with 11 and then later add 100, I may as well start off with 111 in the first place:
Age = 111 - x
Right, that's the slightly complicated bit sorted. Lets put it all together:
The info we need:
- Last two digits of birth year: we're calling this x.
- Age this year: we're saying this is 111 - x
What we have to do:
- birth year + age;
- Using the notation we've defined above, that's: x + 111 - x
But wait... we're starting off with whatever x is, then adding on 111, then taking x off again. Whatever x turns out to be, it doesn't really matter because we're just getting rid of it, leaving just...
111
... all by itself!
An important point...
... just pointed out to me by @justfin is that, due to the fact that two-digit years go in 100-year cycles, anyone who's over 100 years old this year will find that they get an answer of 211 instead of 111!
An important point...
... just pointed out to me by @justfin is that, due to the fact that two-digit years go in 100-year cycles, anyone who's over 100 years old this year will find that they get an answer of 211 instead of 111!
Easier way of saying it, any year peoples age will be the same, your asking people to add their age plus the year they was born. Of course your going to equal out the same because of the year it is now. Everyone is going to get the same difference. Because we are still living in this year.
ReplyDeleteLast year everyone wouldve equaled 110 year before 109 and so on
ReplyDeleteTwo other things:
ReplyDelete1) I was born 77 years after 1900, and will have lived 34 (further) years this year, which is 111 years after 1900. You hardly need the algebra ;o)
2) I have students born in 2000 or later, for whom the sum will only be 11. Poor dears.
Tammy: Easier for some, I agree. Personally, I find the algebraic method more easily understandable and conclusive. Each to their own!
ReplyDeleteKensson: Agreed, the algebra is not absolutely necessary, but I think it's an interesting exercise and may help to illustrate the use of formal mathematics in proving the general case- you can look at individual cases in that way, but the algebraic method shows that it works for everyone born in the last century...
... which brings me on to your second point: I do say in the post "So to find out the age this year of anyone who was born during the previous century...", but agree that it could have been a bit more obvious.
Oh, I missed that ;o) And I should have said the algebra could be simpler- if you were born B years after 1900 and have been around for A years, it's quite clear that A+B = 111.
ReplyDeleteLet A = birth year, provided it's in the range [1900, 1999]. Then,
ReplyDeleteLast two digits of birth year = (A - 1900)
Age achieved this year = (2011 - A)
Add together: 2011 - 1900 = 111.
okay so i just thought of somthing.. with every year that goes by, the number it turns up to be goes down by one. so next year the end result will 110. but if we subtracted (in that case making the end result a negative) instead of adding with each year that goes by, then by the time we get down to end result being 1 it would just count back up through positive's, right?
ReplyDeletethis only happened once 826 years ago.. the end result being all 1's. which was 1100's end result being 1111
ReplyDeletedid i not just blow your mind ;o
Suppose you have a collection of 111 coins. Now separate these coins into two arbitrary piles. It's not at all surprising that there are still 111 coins, no matter how many coins are in one pile or the other.
ReplyDeleteTo make this obvious fact obscure to the non-mathematical, we can give some meaning to the piles and perhaps impose some constraints.
An obfuscation factory: What do you get when you add the last two digits of the year you graduated from (high school, college, graduate school, or whatever, provided it happened in the interval [1900, 1999]) with the anniversary of that graduation? Answer: 111. (Gasp.)
It becomes a lot clearer if you imagine doing it when you were 1 year old.
ReplyDeleteSay you were born in 1973 and your first birthday in 1974 was coming up.
Some guy says "add the last two digits of the year you were born (73) and the age you will be this year (1)...OMG! You get the last two digits of year it is now...74!
Your "important point" is not correct.
ReplyDeleteFor example, my father was born in 1907 and is now 104 years old -- yes, really!
Applying the rule to my father would produce:
[19]07 + 104 = 111
So the above statement is not true. However, if he had been born 8 years earlier, in 1899, the arithmetic would be:
[18]99 + (104 + 8) = 211
so the calculation still applies unless you were born in a previous century -- or in a later century. Whether you're over 100 is not germane; it's whether you were born in an earlier century that makes the difference.
All the above only works in 2011, next year the number is 112!
ReplyDeletenot entirely true if you were born before 1900 e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venere_Pizzinato
ReplyDeleteThis can be thought of in the following simple terms:
ReplyDeletea = # of years after 1900 you were born
b = # of years between your birth year and now
c = # of years between 1900 and now
c is obviously synonymous with a + b
2000 00 out 20+11=31
ReplyDeleteit is not true
it is 31 for me
For God Sake stop commenting about it only working if you we're born in this Century. O.K We understood when the first person said it and the second and the third. I think we have all had enough. The rule above DOES NOT APPLY TO PEOPLE BORN IN A DIFFERENT CENTURY THAN THE CURRENT. See, now everyone who reads this knows, So PLEASE. Stop for the love of god!!! Thanks. Most of the readers on this site.
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone who's posted an alternative explanation. It's great to see these!
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks to Bryan: good point!
To priyadarshini, mts, Chuck and others: it's a good idea to read the rest of the comments on a post before making one of your own, in case you end up saying something that's already been said (thanks ilovekayne...)!
It only works in 2011 ;)
ReplyDeleteThis works every year but next year the number will be 112. If you were born in 1970, you were born 70 years from the the year 1900 and since you where born 41 years have passed and added to 70 that equals 111. If you where born in 1971 you obviously have lived one year less and you only add 40. The sum is therefore always the same and this number is basically the number of years from the year 1900.
ReplyDeletehaha doesn't work 2000 - im 11
ReplyDeleteit only adds up to 11 :D
dOSNT wORK...
ReplyDeleteMine Only Adds Up To 25...
ReplyDeleteTo various commenters: It's a good idea to read the other comments before you make your own comment on a post. On this one, I'd refer you to ilovekayne's comment in particular. PLEASE read comments before you post your own, as it avoids repeating things which have already been said (and resolved).
ReplyDeleteUltimateHacker: That's not possible unless you're a time traveller, so please check your calculations!
Here's why it's not possible: The last two digits of your birth year added to your age can only equal 25 in certain situations, and none of them fit with reality right now. For example, if you were born in 1925, you'd have to be 0 for you to get the answer you state, but you can't be 0: if you were born in 1925 you'd be 86 by now.
Anywhere from 1926 to 1999 gives you a score of over 25 before you even start.
Once you're in 2000 the rules change (as discussed (repeatedly, because people don't seem to want to read them) in the comments above), but even so you can't get a score of 25 without having travelled in time:
Born in 2000, you'd have to be 25 to get a score of 25, but you can't be, because you've only had 12 years in which to age.
Born in 2001, you'd have to be 24 to get a score of 25, but you can't be, because you've only had 11 years in which to age.
We can carry this on until 2012, in which case you'd have to be 13 in order to get a score of 25, but you can't be as you've had no years in which to age (in which case I would forgive your mistake in calculating and congratulate your ability to type so early in your life!)
mines was 112 86+26 what is that suppose to mean
ReplyDeleteearly bday
ReplyDeletey= mX + B ...
ReplyDeletey= year born
m= -1
x= age
b= ( (current year-2001)+100)
true for any year in the millennium
The equation of the a circle is given as X^2+ Y^2 -2Y +1 =5
ReplyDelete1. Prove that the coordinates of the midpoint of the circle are (0;1)
2. Determine the radius of the circle
3. Show that A(1;3) is a point on the circumference of the circle
4. Determine the equation of the diameter of the circle that passes through A(1;3)