Posted by: pgrzelak
LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 04/10/2004 17:01
The subject says it all...
LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test
Posted by: Daria
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 04/10/2004 17:13
Tempting, so tempting...
Posted by: mcomb
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 04/10/2004 17:52
All of a sudden I feel so very stupid 
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 04/10/2004 17:54
My sentiments exactly.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 04/10/2004 21:22
My mind so desperately wants to solve these problems, but it so pitifully can't. Tests like this make me want to quit my job and study endlessly until I'm able to solve these.
Just goes to show, come people 'got it and some people don't. (I still postulize that each person is good at SOMETHING, they just need to figure out what it is. I, myself, am still searching.)
Just goes to show, come people 'got it and some people don't. (I still postulize that each person is good at SOMETHING, they just need to figure out what it is. I, myself, am still searching.)
Posted by: PaulWay
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 05/10/2004 02:04
Well, I at least got the 1 / 1 1 / 2 1 / 1 2 1 1 / 1 1 1 2 2 1 problem - the next lines are 3 1 2 2 1 1 / 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 / 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 / 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 / 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 and so on. I think I can prove that you never get numbers higher than 3.
Another good one is 1 3 7 12 18 26 ...
And so much more at The Online Encyclopaedia of Integer Sequences
Paul
Another good one is 1 3 7 12 18 26 ...
And so much more at The Online Encyclopaedia of Integer Sequences
Paul
Posted by: gbeer
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 05/10/2004 04:31
for 17
f(10,000,000,001) = 10,000,000,001 <wrong
Arrgh off by 1
f(9,999,999,990) = 9,999,999,999
f(9,999,999,999) = 10,000,000,000
f(10,000,000,000) = 10,000,000,001
f(10,000,000,001) = 10,000,000,002
f(10,000,000,002) = 10,000,000,002 < right
For 16
Assume an equalatral triangle. (The test said I could)
bisect each of two sides to determine the midpoint.
draw a line from each midpoint to the opposite vertex.
where they cross is P.
And the specified triangles have the same perimeters.
f(10,000,000,001) = 10,000,000,001 <wrong
Arrgh off by 1
f(9,999,999,990) = 9,999,999,999
f(9,999,999,999) = 10,000,000,000
f(10,000,000,000) = 10,000,000,001
f(10,000,000,001) = 10,000,000,002
f(10,000,000,002) = 10,000,000,002 < right
For 16
Assume an equalatral triangle. (The test said I could)
bisect each of two sides to determine the midpoint.
draw a line from each midpoint to the opposite vertex.
where they cross is P.
And the specified triangles have the same perimeters.
Posted by: peter
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 05/10/2004 07:12
Quote:
Assume an equalatral triangle. (The test said I could)
I had hoped that this was the trick, but sadly P can be found for at least some isoceles triangles -- a 6/5/5 triangle has P (degenerately) in the centre of the 6 side (common perimeter 12), and a 10/13/13 triangle has P 5/9 of the way along the symmetry line (common perimeter 80/3).
The construction is fairly straightforward for the isoceles case; the hard bit of this question is either constructing it for scalene, or proving that impossible.
Peter
Posted by: trs24
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 05/10/2004 14:41
Quote:
Well, I at least got the 1 / 1 1 / 2 1 / 1 2 1 1 / 1 1 1 2 2 1 problem...
Me too, but only because it was a puzzle of the day here on the bbs a while back. I can confidently say that I'm never getting hired by Google. :P
Posted by: gbeer
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 01:04
I think the point of 16 is not to find a solution, but more like, "Do you make your tasks harder than need be?"
Posted by: peter
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 06:56
Quote:
I think the point of 16 is not to find a solution, but more like, "Do you make your tasks harder than need be?"
Or simpler than they need to be? This is Google labs, don't forget; if it were Microsoft labs I could believe they'd be satisfied with only bothering to get the trivial case right
Peter
Posted by: mdavey
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 07:16
Have you seen this one:
‘{ First 10 digit prime in consecutive digits of e }.com’
‘{ First 10 digit prime in consecutive digits of e }.com’
Posted by: tfabris
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 12:23
Wasn't that Google's billboard ad campaign in San Jose a while back? I believe the resulting web site was their job application form, if I recall correctly.
Posted by: mdavey
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 12:33
Kinda. The resulting web site is this one: http://7427466391.com/
If you follow the trail through to its conclusion, then you get here.
The thing is, if you use Google, you don't really need to solve the problems yourself - which is fine if you want to employ resolution centre staff that have an above-average motivation to research the answer to known problems but not so good if you want people who realise that there is no box|spoon.
If you follow the trail through to its conclusion, then you get here.
The thing is, if you use Google, you don't really need to solve the problems yourself
- which is fine if you want to employ resolution centre staff that have an above-average motivation to research the answer to known problems but not so good if you want people who realise that there is no box|spoon.
Posted by: Daria
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 13:29
I used google to get a list of 10 digit primes rather than calculating them, but it would have been easy enough to take their list and calculate what was prime...
Posted by: mcomb
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 16:27
Quote:
Have you seen this one:
‘{ First 10 digit prime in consecutive digits of e }.com’
That billboard is about a mile from my condo. It was a neat idea until it got publicized on the news and all over the web. I keep waiting for them to replace it with something more complicated.
-Mike
Posted by: gbeer
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 17:39
Quote:Quote:
I think the point of 16 is not to find a solution, but more like, "Do you make your tasks harder than need be?"
Or simpler than they need to be? This is Google labs, don't forget; if it were Microsoft labs I could believe they'd be satisfied with only bothering to get the trivial case right
Peter
The questions recrutiers ask, are often aimed at filtering out people for reasons not necessarily apparent in the question. Asking and engineer, "What catalog he selected a component from" is one such question. The point of the question isn't to discover what catalog he used, but if he even knows which catalogs to look in. A phony won't know.
edit> I still stand by what I said earlier. The problem as stated dosen't ask for a complex solution which will work for all solvable cases.
Posted by: gbeer
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test question 1 - 06/10/2004 18:07
in question 1
It's a logic problem.
WWWDOT - GOOGLE = DOTCOM or DOTCOM + GOOGLE = WWWDOT
(which can be rewritten to )
DOTCOM
GOOGLE
----------------
WWWDOT
Now it's easier to see the clues that are available.
For instance the L is either a 9 or a zero. if its 9 M+E>9, otherwise M+E<10
O+O=W
W is and even digit.
It's a logic problem.
WWWDOT - GOOGLE = DOTCOM or DOTCOM + GOOGLE = WWWDOT
(which can be rewritten to )
DOTCOM
----------------
WWWDOT
Now it's easier to see the clues that are available.
For instance the L is either a 9 or a zero. if its 9 M+E>9, otherwise M+E<10
O+O=W
W is and even digit.
Posted by: peter
Re: LotD: The Google Labs Aptitude Test - 06/10/2004 18:24
Quote:
I still stand by what I said earlier. The problem as stated dosen't ask for a complex solution which will work for all solvable cases.
And I stand by not giving you a job at Google Labs (not that I'd get one either). The problem as stated says you can assume ABC is constructed so that a solution exists. You can't assume more than that. As there are solutions where ABC is isoceles, that means you can't assume it's equilateral. Jabs at Microsoft aside, computer science is all about not assuming strong preconditions when you're in fact only given weak ones. Some of those GLAT questions are trick questions (20), but there's no evidence that this isn't a straightforward geometry problem.
Having said that, I'm amazed that (a) this problem isn't in Euclid and (b) googling doesn't tell me whether it is or not.
Quote:
The questions recrutiers ask, are often aimed at filtering out people for reasons not necessarily apparent in the question. Asking and engineer, "What catalog he selected a component from" is one such question. The point of the question isn't to discover what catalog he used, but if he even knows which catalogs to look in. A phony won't know.
Sure. And asserting the triviality of a problem you haven't actually solved probably gets you great management jobs in this industry. It just doesn't get you R&D jobs.
Peter