Question

this is against the rules and i'm sorry for breaking it but here's something for a good laugh and release of stress. (not math related)

Answer 1

This is an Exam which a student got 0 as a mark for it ! yet if u read the Questions closely you'll see that he didn't make any Mistakes :-)

Q1. In which battle did Napoleon died ?
* in his last battle .

Q2. Where was the Declaration of Independence signed ?
* at the bottom of the page .

Q3. River Ravi flows in which state ?
* liquid .

Q4. What is the main reason for divorce ?
*Marriage

Q5. What can you never eat before breakfast ?
*Lunch and Dinner .

Q6. What looks like half an apple ?
*The other half .

Q7. If you throw a red stone into a the blue sea what it will become ?
* It will simply become wet .

Q8. How can a man go eight days without sleeping ?
* No problem ; He sleeps at night .

Q9. What is the main reason for failure ?
* Exams .

Q10. How can you lift an elephant with one hand ?
*You will never find an elephant that has only one hand .

Q11. If you had three apples and tow oranges in one hand and four apples and three oranges in the other hand , what would you have ?
* Very large hands .

Q12. If it took eight men ten hours to build a wall , how long would it take four men to build it ?
* No time at all , the wall is already built ?

Q13.How can you drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it ?
*Any way you want , concrete floors are very hard to be cracked .

* So what do you think about the answers ?

Credit: Anxhela

Answer 2

I am going to execute you for breaking rules of this forum :P

Answer 3

Btw sat has posted this few days back.

Answer 4

didn't see it

Answer 5

i cant believe the geek broke the rules :O

Answer 6

duh, that's what we do, most geeks who tend to be hackers always break things and create things... it's our nature

Answer 7

I can't believe it either ,he was the one who always tell people to up hold the rules all the time

Answer 8

rules are meant to be broken, but when u break them, u bear the consequences, i was ready for it so whatever happens... happens :)

Answer 9

but i have to say, it did make me laugh:)

Answer 10

Heros' don't think they just carry on.

Answer 11

lol heros and geeks -_- :P

Answer 12

haha :D

Answer 13

Here is another great story with a similar theme.


Some time ago I received a call from a colleague who asked if I would
be the referee on the grading of an examination question. He was about
to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while
the student claimed he should receive a perfect score and would if the
system were not set up against the student: The instructor and the
student agreed to submit this to an impartial arbiter, and I was
selected.

I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question:
"Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building
with the aid of a barometer."

The student had answered: "Take a barometer to the top of the
building, attach a long rope to it, lower the barometer to the street
and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of
the rope is the height of the building."

I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full
credit since he had answered the question completely and correctly. On
the other hand, if full credit was given, it could well contribute to
a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is
supposed to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not
confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try at
answering the question I was not surprised that my colleague agreed,
but I was surprised that the student did.

I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning
that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of
five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to
give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was
just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him
and asked him to please go on. In the next minute he dashed off his
answer which read:

"Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge
of the roof. Drop that barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch.
Then using the formula S = ½at², calculate the height of the building.

At this point I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded,
and I gave the student almost full credit.

In leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said
he had many other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they
were. "Oh yes," said the student. "There are a great many ways of
getting the height of a tall building with a barometer. For example,
you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height
of the barometer and the length of its shadow, and the length of the
shadow of the building and by the use of a simple proportion,
determine the height of the building."

"Fine," I asked. "And the others?"

"Yes," said the student. "There is a very basic measurement method
that you will like. In this method you take the barometer and begin to
walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length
of the barometer along the wa]l. You then count the number of marks,
and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units.
A very direct method."

"Of course, if you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the
barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and
determine the value of `g' at the street level and at the top of the
building. From the difference of the two values of `g' the height of
the building can be calculated."

Finally, he concluded, there are many other ways of solving the
problem. "Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to
the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the
superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: "Mr.
Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer. If you tell me the
height of this building, I will give you this barometer."

At this point I asked the student if he really did know the
conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, said
that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to
teach him how to think, using the "scientific method," and to explore
the deep inner logic of the subject in a pedantic way, as is often
done in the new mathematics, rather than teaching him the structure of
the subject. With this in mind, he decided to revive scholasticism as
an academic lark to challenge the Sputnik-panicked classrooms of
America.