3 ms·

I wonder if there's an issue in translation. How could they "combine" their money if Masha had nothing to begin with? But if we assume quantities of money can b

by AlanYx 5y ago

I wonder if there's an issue in translation. How could they "combine" their money if Masha had nothing to begin with? But if we assume quantities of money can be non-integers, then the problem is underconstrained.

karamanolev 5y ago
Kopeck - "It is usually the smallest denomination within a currency system." I presume they used kopecks for a purpose and not rubles, dollars or another unit that can be subdivided. That forces the integerness of the amounts and thus the presence of a solution.
- Arnavion 5y ago
  The solution to the second question requires half-kopeks.
  - karamanolev 5y ago
    I looked at that problem after posting my original and was utterly confused. Would you trust yourself with an answer involving half-pennies? Seems like an error. As others pointed out, in #1, unless the kopecks are integer, the answer is underconstrained. #2 requires non-integer kopecks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
watertom 5y ago
The problem is that the girls can't afford to buy a book singularly. Masha needs 7 kopecks to buy 1 book "Misha lacked one", which means to me as an native English speaker that Misha needed just one more Kopeck in order to purchase 1 book. When it's revealed that when they pool their money that they don't have enough to purchase just 1 book, I realized that the translation is faulty and stopped looking at the rest of the problems.
- sudobash1 5y ago
  I believe your reading is correct. The problem is stating "Misha lacked one kopeck". Consider this solution: Masha has 0 kopecks Misha has 6 kopeks The book costs 7 kopeks Granted, you could consider this a trick question in this case because it doesn't really make sense to "combine" money with someone who didn't have any. I am not sure if this is the case, but if a kopeck is sub-dividable, you could also have the solution: Masha has .5 kopecks Misha has 6.5 kopeks The book costs 7.5 kopeks

by AlanYx 5y ago

karamanolev 5y ago

Kopeck - "It is usually the smallest denomination within a currency system." I presume they used kopecks for a purpose and not rubles, dollars or another unit that can be subdivided. That forces the integerness of the amounts and thus the presence of a solution.

Arnavion 5y ago
The solution to the second question requires half-kopeks.
- karamanolev 5y ago
  I looked at that problem after posting my original and was utterly confused. Would you trust yourself with an answer involving half-pennies? Seems like an error. As others pointed out, in #1, unless the kopecks are integer, the answer is underconstrained. #2 requires non-integer kopecks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

watertom 5y ago

The problem is that the girls can't afford to buy a book singularly. Masha needs 7 kopecks to buy 1 book "Misha lacked one", which means to me as an native English speaker that Misha needed just one more Kopeck in order to purchase 1 book. When it's revealed that when they pool their money that they don't have enough to purchase just 1 book, I realized that the translation is faulty and stopped looking at the rest of the problems.

sudobash1 5y ago
I believe your reading is correct. The problem is stating "Misha lacked one kopeck". Consider this solution: Masha has 0 kopecks Misha has 6 kopeks The book costs 7 kopeks Granted, you could consider this a trick question in this case because it doesn't really make sense to "combine" money with someone who didn't have any. I am not sure if this is the case, but if a kopeck is sub-dividable, you could also have the solution: Masha has .5 kopecks Misha has 6.5 kopeks The book costs 7.5 kopeks