MHB How many chocolates did Angeline give to Billie

  • Thread starter Thread starter anemone
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Angeline had 70 more chocolates than Billie, represented as x = y + 70. After giving 20% of her chocolates to Billie, the equation y + 0.2x = 0.8x + 20 describes their new totals. By substituting y from the first equation into the second, we find x - 70 = 0.6x + 20. Solving this gives x = 90, meaning Angeline originally had 90 chocolates. Consequently, Angeline gave Billie 18 chocolates, as 20% of 90 is 18.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Angeline and Billie shared some chocolates. Angeline had 70 more chocolates than Billie. After Angeline gave 20% of her sweets to Billie, Billie had 20 more chocolates than Angeline. How many chocolates did Angeline give to Billie?

(This is another word problem that can be approached by the model method...(Nod))
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That looks like a pretty standard "algebra" problem. Let x be the number of chocolates Angeline had and let y be the number of chocolates Billy had.

" Angeline had 70 more chocolates than Billie."
x= y+ 70 or y=x- 70.

" After Angeline gave 20% of her sweets to Billie, Billie had 20 more chocolates than Angeline."
20% of Angeline's sweets is 0.2x. After Angeline gives them to Billie she has x- 0.2x= 0.8x and Billie has y+ 0.2x sweets. y+ 0.2x= 0.8x+ 20. Subtract 0.2x from both sides to get y= 0.6x+ 20.

We have both y= x- 70 and y= 0.6x+ 20 so x- 70= 0.6x+ 20.

Solve that for x." How many chocolates did Angeline give to Billie?"
Multiply x by 0.2.
 
[TIKZ]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (2,1);
\draw (-8,0) rectangle (0,1);
\draw [<->] (-8, 1.4) -- (0.8, 1.4);
\node at (-3,1.6) {\small 4 units};
\draw [<->] (0, 1.2) -- (2, 1.2);
\node at (1,1.8) {\small 70 chocolates};
\node at (0.4,0.4) {\tiny 1 part};
\node at (1.4,0.4) {\tiny 1 unit};
\draw[thick, dotted] (0.8, 0) -- (0.8, 1);
\node at (-8.6,0.5) {\small A};
\node at (-8.6,-1) {\small B};
\draw (-8,-1.5) rectangle (0,-0.5);
\draw (0,-1.5) rectangle (1.2,-0.5);
\draw[thick, dotted] (0.8, -1.5) -- (0.8, -0.5);
\node at (0.4,-1) {\tiny 1 part};
\node at (1,-1) {\tiny 20};
\draw[very thick, dotted,green] (0,-1.5) rectangle (1.2,-0.5);
\draw[ultra thick, dotted,green] (0,-1.5) rectangle (1.2,-0.5);
\draw[ultra thick, dotted,green] (0.8,0) rectangle (2,1);
\draw[gray, thick, - >] (2.1,0.5) -- (2.2,0.5) -- (2.2,-1) -- (1.3,-1);
\draw [<->] (0,-1.7) rectangle (1.2,-1.7);
\node at (0.7,-1.85) {\tiny 1 unit};
[/TIKZ]

We are looking for the value of 1 unit.

$\begin{align*} 1 \text{ part}+1 \text{ unit}&=70\\1 \text{ part} +20&=1 \text{ unit}\\1 \text{ unit} -20&=70-1 \text{ unit}\\ 2 \text{ units}&=90\\ \therefore 1 \text{ unit}&=45\end{align*}$
 
That would be better if you had said what "one unit" and "one part" are in terms of numbers of chocolates.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top