>>>> My age is the sum of the digits of my birth year. Figure that out
>>>> before December comes and I forever lose the ability to say that :)
>>>
>>> Heh. Sounds like a perfect age. ;-)
>>>
>>> So you were either born in 1986 or 2004. :-P
>>
>> Neither.
>
> 2010 - 1986 = 24 = 1+9+8+6
>
> 2010 - 2004 = 6 = 2+0+0+4
>
> Surely my math isn't that bad?

No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 doesn't 
mean you are 24 years old...

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely my math isn't that bad?
> 
> No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 
> doesn't mean you are 24 years old...

Ah yes, I forgot the possibility of relativistic time dilation...

Post a reply to this message

>> No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 doesn't 
>> mean you are 24 years old...
>
> Ah yes, I forgot the possibility of relativistic time dilation...

I would suspect that almost exactly three quarters of people born in 1986 
are 23, not 24.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 
>>> doesn't mean you are 24 years old...
>>
>> Ah yes, I forgot the possibility of relativistic time dilation...
> 
> I would suspect that almost exactly three quarters of people born in 
> 1986 are 23, not 24.

Well, he specifically mentioned December, so...

Post a reply to this message

On 30-3-2010 10:56, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>>> No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 
>>>> doesn't mean you are 24 years old...
>>>
>>> Ah yes, I forgot the possibility of relativistic time dilation...
>>
>> I would suspect that almost exactly three quarters of people born in 
>> 1986 are 23, not 24.
> 
> Well, he specifically mentioned December, so...

So he is 23 now and will turn 24 in december. Sometimes I have a feeling 
that you are playing silly on purpose. Let's hope so.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-3-2010 10:56, Invisible wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>>>> No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 
>>>>> doesn't mean you are 24 years old...
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, I forgot the possibility of relativistic time dilation...
>>>
>>> I would suspect that almost exactly three quarters of people born in 
>>> 1986 are 23, not 24.
>>
>> Well, he specifically mentioned December, so...
> 
> So he is 23 now and will turn 24 in december. Sometimes I have a feeling 
> that you are playing silly on purpose. Let's hope so.

He said that his age *is* the sum of the digits now, and will *stop* 
being so in December, so that would make him 24 now, wouldn't it?

Post a reply to this message

> He said that his age *is* the sum of the digits now, and will *stop* being 
> so in December, so that would make him 24 now, wouldn't it?

If he is 24 now and turns 25 in December, that means he was born in 1985. 
1+9+8+5 != 24

Post a reply to this message

I give up. Clearly I'm too stupid to figure this out.

Post a reply to this message

> I give up. Clearly I'm too stupid to figure this out.

You just forgot a "-1" in your calculation of age, when the person hasn't 
had their birthday yet this year:

currentAge = 2010 - birthYear - 1

With that correction it should be pretty trivial to solve for the age using 
whatever method you originally used.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I give up. Clearly I'm too stupid to figure this out.
> 
> You just forgot a "-1" in your calculation of age, when the person 
> hasn't had their birthday yet this year:

Since the guy said that in December it would cease to be the case, I 
presumed he ment because at the end of December the year will change.

Still, you're talking to somebody who blatantly can't tell the time. I 
frequently misread my watch so I get a time that's off by one hour 
either way. When I calculate time intervals there's often an error of 
one somewhere. (One minute is usually unimportant, but getting something 
wrong by an hour is usually a BIG DEAL.)

Post a reply to this message