¿Coincidencia?

Take the last two numbers of the year of your birth and add them to the age you will reach this year and the answer will be………?

I bet it will be 111.  [Highlight the blank bit.]  It will always be that number, no matter who it is.

Weird.

24 comments for “¿Coincidencia?

  1. February 18, 2011 at 19:13

    I think if you’re born before 1952, the answer for everyone is 111.

  2. February 18, 2011 at 19:17

    What about if you were born in 1979?

  3. February 18, 2011 at 19:20

    Not if you were born in 1899. Otherwise, if y is this year and x the year you were born (1900 or later), your age plus year of birth is (y-x)+x = y.

  4. February 18, 2011 at 19:22

    Doesn’t work if one is born in 2000 or later ==>11

  5. February 18, 2011 at 19:26

    CalumCarr has it.

    And why this weird to James?

    It surely just has to do with the definition of year and the concept of modulus(100).

    Best regards

  6. February 18, 2011 at 19:27

    Oh pooh. Nigel – it’s JD’s post.

  7. Bill
    February 18, 2011 at 19:44

    Born 1960
    Last two numbers = 6
    my age this year = 51
    51+6= 57!!!

    What was the bet again?

  8. February 18, 2011 at 19:45

    Indeed it is James, and I’d have corrected it 15 minutes ago (or rather acknowledged my error), but my post took ages to get posted and I was wondering if it had been mislaid and so I would not be embarrassed by my carelessness.

    Apologies to both JD and JH.

    Now, why weird?

    Best regards

  9. February 18, 2011 at 19:57

    Bill – are you sure the last two numbers are 6?

    Nigel – I’ll have to prod JD to reply. He’s probably out on the town at the moment, as most right thinking people should be.

  10. February 18, 2011 at 20:23

    Weird? All you are doing is taking a number away from 111, then adding to it the difference between the number and 111, and getting 111 as the answer. It is arithmetic. No more weird than take 1 away from 2, add 1 and be amazed you get back to 2 again. Nice attempted cheat by Bill though, but of course he was meant to use 60, not 6 plus zero.

  11. February 18, 2011 at 20:33

    LOVE it.

  12. February 18, 2011 at 20:34

    What is weird, however, is the operation of the random comment blaster that appears to have just destroyed my comment about how totally non-weird this bit of obvious arithmetic is.

  13. February 18, 2011 at 20:35

    What is weird, however, is the operation of the random comment blaster that appears to have just destroyed my comment about how totally non-weird this bit of obvious arithmetic is, then told me this one (first attempt) was a duplicate. OK. I give up.

  14. February 18, 2011 at 20:50

    That was really weird, H. insciens.

    That was really weird, H. insciens.

    That was really weird, H. insciens.

    Thanks also, Alexys.

  15. February 18, 2011 at 20:53

    It’s true for me (63+48)

    Clearly this is some sort of witchcraft. I move that JD be hanged as a witch forthwith…

  16. February 18, 2011 at 21:11

    And in 2012 if you do it the numbers will add up to 112, etc, etc,…
    What is weird is that people think it is weird.

  17. JD
    February 18, 2011 at 21:13

    looks like the pedants’ revolt is underway
    🙂

    some more numbers….

    Este año 2011 vamos a tener 4 fechas poco comunes:
    1/1/11 – 11/1/11 – 1/11/11 – 11/11/11

  18. February 18, 2011 at 21:24

    Y uno y uno hace dos! Aritmética

  19. JD
    February 18, 2011 at 22:31

    H.I.

    y uno más uno suman dos!

  20. February 18, 2011 at 22:40

    Y Google traducir comete errores? Seguro que no 🙂

  21. February 18, 2011 at 22:43

    Éste es el salir de la mano.

  22. February 18, 2011 at 22:50

    ¿Qué estás haciendo con la mano de James? (o tiene Google traducir me engañó otra vez?)

  23. dearieme
    February 18, 2011 at 22:51

    Is no-one going to mention that 111 is a Nelson?

  24. February 19, 2011 at 20:04

    You just did, Dearieme.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please copy the string wB57DV to the field below: