¿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 Responses to “¿Coincidencia?”

1. Rick February 18, 2011 at 19:13 Permalink

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

2. James Higham February 18, 2011 at 19:17 Permalink

What about if you were born in 1979?

3. Sackerson February 18, 2011 at 19:20 Permalink

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. CalumCarr February 18, 2011 at 19:22 Permalink

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

5. Nigel Sedgwick February 18, 2011 at 19:26 Permalink

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. James Higham February 18, 2011 at 19:27 Permalink

Oh pooh. Nigel – it’s JD’s post.

7. Bill February 18, 2011 at 19:44 Permalink

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

What was the bet again?

8. Nigel Sedgwick February 18, 2011 at 19:45 Permalink

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. James Higham February 18, 2011 at 19:57 Permalink

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. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 20:23 Permalink

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. Alexys Fairfield February 18, 2011 at 20:33 Permalink

LOVE it.

12. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 20:34 Permalink

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. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 20:35 Permalink

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. James Higham February 18, 2011 at 20:50 Permalink

That was really weird, H. insciens.

That was really weird, H. insciens.

That was really weird, H. insciens.

Thanks also, Alexys.

15. Jams O'Donnell February 18, 2011 at 20:53 Permalink

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. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 21:11 Permalink

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 Permalink

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. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 21:24 Permalink

Y uno y uno hace dos! Aritmética

19. JD February 18, 2011 at 22:31 Permalink

H.I.

y uno más uno suman dos!

20. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 22:40 Permalink

21. James Higham February 18, 2011 at 22:43 Permalink

Éste es el salir de la mano.

22. H. insciens February 18, 2011 at 22:50 Permalink

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

23. dearieme February 18, 2011 at 22:51 Permalink

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

24. James Higham February 19, 2011 at 20:04 Permalink

You just did, Dearieme.