Divide number into 3 parts with each part being 1.6 times greater than the last

  • Thread starter CF.Gauss
  • Start date
  • Tags
    parts
In summary, a friend posed a question about dividing 90 into three parts where each part is 1.6 times greater than the last. The solution provided was to write an equation as x + 1.6x + 1.6^2x = 90, then factorize and simplify. The conversation also touched on the balance between helping and spoon-feeding, with the suggestion of leading the OP to the answer rather than giving it outright.
  • #1

CF.Gauss

8
1
A friend posed this just for fun but now its really annoying me.

how do you divide 90 into three parts so that each part is 1.6 times greater than the last.
i.e: the second value should be 1.6 times greater than the first and the third value should be 1.6 times greater than the second?

Im confusing myself with this.
Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi CF.Gauss. Just write it as [itex]x + 1.6 x + 1.6^2 x = 90[/itex] and then factorize out the "x" and simplify.
 
  • #3
uart said:
Hi CF.Gauss. Just write it as [itex]x + 1.6 x + 1.6^2 x = 90[/itex] and then factorize out the "x" and simplify.

Hm ... I thought the goal here was to help people think and understand things, not spoon-feed them answers. Have I got that wrong?
 
  • #4
phinds said:
Hm ... I thought the goal here was to help people think and understand things, not spoon-feed them answers. Have I got that wrong?

Actually I did not give the answer, I left the factorizing and the following arithmetic for the OP to do. This is in effect the first line of what probably be a three line derivation for the OP.

I agree though that it does give away a large part of the overall solution. Sometimes with such a simple question it's hard to know how to give the OP a "start" without giving away too much. :smile:

BTW. To me this looked more like a curiosity question than homework anyway, though of course I don't know that for sure.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
uart said:
Actually I did not give the answer, I left the factorizing and the following arithmetic for the OP to do. This is in effect the first line of what probably be a three line derivation for the OP.

I agree though that it does give away a large part of the overall solution. Sometimes with such a simple question it's hard to know how to give the OP a "start" without giving away too much. :smile:

BTW. To me this looked more like a curiosity question than homework anyway, though of course I don't know that for sure.

Yeah, I can't argue w/ that. Still, I was going to try to lead him to an equation rather than give it to him.
 

Suggested for: Divide number into 3 parts with each part being 1.6 times greater than the last

A Why the triangle inequality is greater than the 2 max{f(x),g(x)}
Replies
1
Views
609
B Have I proved some part of Fermat's last theorem?
Replies
15
Views
695
MHB How to divide a circumference into equal parts, WITHOUT COMPASS?
Replies
1
Views
2K
MHB The smallest circle that two parts of a semi-circle can fit into?
Replies
1
Views
968
B Decomposition of a function into even and odd parts
Replies
28
Views
5K
A Prime Number Powers of Integers and Fermat's Last Theorem
Replies
1
Views
556
B Negative times a positive
Replies
4
Views
612
I Finding the inverse tangent of a complex number
Replies
2
Views
733
MHB Ix1 + x2 + x3 + x4 = 12 with at least one variable equal or greater than 5
Replies
1
Views
978
B Is this a complex number at the second quadrant?
Replies
7
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top