This is pretty cool but, is it a game? I can't see how solving math problems under a time limit can be useful for anything besides a math exam or some other academic test.
Ten seconds of math
21–30 of 123 posts
Re: Ten seconds of math
#22Just for anyone who feels pleased with their mental maths and thinks they might be able to take on their calculator head-to-head: window.setInterval(function(){$('#question-answer').val(eval($('#question').html().replace("×"," ").replace("÷","/").replace(/(. )²/,"Math.pow($1,2)").replace(/√(.*)/,"Math.sqrt($1)"))).trigger("keyup")},10)
your paste lost an asterisk * in the first replace statement
Re: Ten seconds of math
#23Pretty cool, zombie mode morning with addition only and number limit of 30: "You scored 504. You are better than 100 %" I am sure this will be easily beat by all the caffeinated people pretty soon. Updated: this is actually easier with all the other options enabled because you get easy things like sqrt([4, 16, 25]), x * [0,1], and x / [1, 2] a lot. I was actually over 30 seconds on timer when I hit 18^2 question. "Yo…
333 was also better than 100% for the same settings...
https://github.com/michaeljakob/10-seconds-math/blob/master/...
No real ranking data is being used in this calculation
Re: Ten seconds of math
#24I crazy love how it auto submits your answers for you, super convenient! My dad made me do similar online mental math exercises when I was younger and I always hated how clicking "next" reduced my time. Does it take into account what your settings were when it reports your score relative to others?
Doesn't pressing Enter generally work? I'm usually surprised by how many people click a button to submit a form.
Re: Ten seconds of math
#25This is pretty cool but, is it a game? I can't see how solving math problems under a time limit can be useful for anything besides a math exam or some other academic test.
A long time ago, I read an article concerning mathematical problems and how solving them improves (probably short term) intelligence. It turned out that simple arithmetic was the most useful. Of course, I can't find the source right now.
Re: Ten seconds of math
#26Was not disappointed. Was half expecting a 3 page long article about some epiphany over 10 seconds of math contemplation.
Re: Ten seconds of math
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
333 was also better than 100% for the same settings...
https://github.com/michaeljakob/10-seconds-math/blob/master/... No real ranking data is being used in this calculation
if (sliderMax > 100) {
sliderMax = 100;
}
score = Math.ceil(numAnswersCorrect * (sliderMax / 10 + numOperatorsEnabled))
Score multiplier and number of operators selected directly influence the score. So setting slider to 10 and enabling all operators gives 7 points per question and increasing slider to a 100 raises that to 16 points per question.
Re: Ten seconds of math
#28With default settings: You scored 666 You are better than 100 %
At default settings, only boredom makes me run out of time. [Actually, waiting a full minute or so for time to run out was too boring, too. I changed settings before that]
Addition up to 1000 is reasonably fun, but also feels like it would be doable for a really long time with a physical keyboard and at full attention (I got 3328).
That also is a weak point of games like this. IMO, games are good if you can play them without attending to them or when they provide interesting problems. Games with dull problems that require your attention fail. A prime example of the first game type is Tetris; I use to say that your spinal cord can play it. Examples of the second type are Sokoban and (a million times so) DROD (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Rooms_of_Death)
With all operations checked and numbers up to 1000, I find I need more time, and scoring seems brutal (only 16 points after 2 or 3 correct amswers?)
I also find it a bug that you get subtractions with negative numbers as answers.
Finally, is it a bug or a feature that starting a game gets you the same problem and partial answer that the last game finished with? It helps in doing a post-mortem, but can make it really hard to get that first answer right.
Re: Ten seconds of math
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
333 was also better than 100% for the same settings...
https://github.com/michaeljakob/10-seconds-math/blob/master/... No real ranking data is being used in this calculation
What I meant to way was that you're not being ranked amongst your peers. Saying that you're "better than 100%" or any other percentage is just a result of the assumption that a really good score is 200.
Re: Ten seconds of math
#30My score: 4785 :) (all options, number limit = 50)