Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Maths help. Can someone not dumb like me help me please.

46 replies

IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 11:16

If I have a box that measures 432mm X 254mm X 140mm
How many items measuring 200mm X 50mm X 30mm can I fit in it?

If you can help - thank you. I have discovered I'm as thick as pigshit. 😭

OP posts:
NeverDropYourMooncup · 26/04/2023 11:22

Your biggest side of the box will take two items lengthwise. 400mm

It will take 5 items across. 250mm.

They can be stacked to 4 high. 120mm.

4 layers of 10 items with some wriggle room. 40 items.

Kiwisarenotjustfruit · 26/04/2023 11:23

First estimate = 2x5x4
so 40

BarbaraofSeville · 26/04/2023 11:24

Dividing the dimensions of the items by the dimensions of the box, you could get 2 x 5 x 4 = 40 items.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

General education
Kiwisarenotjustfruit · 26/04/2023 11:24

Or 1x8x4 if you turn them round but that’s fewer items - 32

Original poster
IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 11:25

I love you all! 😁
Thank you.

I am so so shit at this stuff. I can't get my head round it. My brain goes nah. That looks hard. We're not doing that. Let's go watch YouTube videos of cats

OP posts:
Kiwisarenotjustfruit · 26/04/2023 11:26

2x8x2 turned on their sides but that’s only 32 as well.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 26/04/2023 11:26

By the way, you're not thick. I can visualise this, others will do it through pure maths without necessarily seeing it.

MagicSpring · 26/04/2023 11:27

Yep, 40, although the cussed bit of me says there’s probably a way of fitting a couple more in by putting one sideways, and I would probably waste an afternoon trying and breaking the box.

Kiwisarenotjustfruit · 26/04/2023 11:28

But you’d be able to shove some more down the side actually. So 2x8x2 + 2 down the side = 34
I think. I might have mentally turned some items inside out or something

NeverDropYourMooncup · 26/04/2023 11:28

MagicSpring · 26/04/2023 11:27

Yep, 40, although the cussed bit of me says there’s probably a way of fitting a couple more in by putting one sideways, and I would probably waste an afternoon trying and breaking the box.

I'd give up when the cat inevitably launches himself into it halfway through and spends the next hour defending his territory.

MagicSpring · 26/04/2023 11:34

Ha, how true!

Original poster
IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 12:29

Ha! My cat is exactly the same.

OP posts:
MagicSpring · 26/04/2023 19:10

You can squeeze an extra 2 items into the space left by NeverDropYourMooncup's original answer:
254 x 140 x 32 gap will take two 200 x 50 x 30 items side by side.

So the answer is 42, which is very satisfying.

(If I'm wrong, please give the wrecked box to the cat.)

Original poster
IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 22:34

Thanks again.
I would offer to update with how many I fitted in there but it's going to be a month and I doubt anyone would care 🤣

OP posts:
LaPerduta · 26/04/2023 22:48

I don't mean to be rude specifically to the OP, but people who have been through the UK education system should really be able to do this stuff. It's probably Year 8 maths or thereabouts and there's something wrong if it's beyond an intelligent adult who has presumably done GCSE maths.

Original poster
IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 22:51

Yeah. I'm as thick as pigshit when it comes to maths.

Always have been.

My strengths lie elsewhere. I'm at peace with it.
Thankfully there's places like Mumsnet where a dimwit like me can get help, for which I am grateful.

OP posts:
DianePemberley · 26/04/2023 22:54

LaPerduta · 26/04/2023 22:48

I don't mean to be rude specifically to the OP, but people who have been through the UK education system should really be able to do this stuff. It's probably Year 8 maths or thereabouts and there's something wrong if it's beyond an intelligent adult who has presumably done GCSE maths.

You might not mean to be rude, but that post is rude. It's not answering the OP at all. Some people just don't find maths logical. It could be that the something wrong you mention, is just that it has been a number of years since someone has had to use those skills and their confidence is likely to have been impacted by that.

Original poster
IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 22:58

Its fine really, I don't mind being called dim. 🤣

I'm nearly 50 now. I remember sweet fa of any of that stuff.

My dad was a maths teacher and my total mental block used to drive him potty.

Funnily enough call it money and I have no issues. I do spreadsheets, balance sheets, cashflow forecasts, loads of money stuff that's probably maths 😁. But give me a maths problem and my tiny brain dribbles out of my ears.

Thankfully it's not held me back in any way as there's ways to find answers I'm too stupid to work out for myself 😁

OP posts:
LaPerduta · 26/04/2023 23:02

Well that's kind of my point. You're clearly not stupid and I wasn't meaning to call you dim. But it's a bit like the British tendency to be monoglots. Some (perhaps a lot) of it is to do with expectation. Or perhaps it's badly taught. I'm not sure.

SamBeckettslastleap · 26/04/2023 23:04

LaPerduta · 26/04/2023 22:48

I don't mean to be rude specifically to the OP, but people who have been through the UK education system should really be able to do this stuff. It's probably Year 8 maths or thereabouts and there's something wrong if it's beyond an intelligent adult who has presumably done GCSE maths.

Not relevant to the op but I shall answer. I'm not stupid but I didn't ever really understand maths. I learnt how to pass a test, I have an A at GCSE, but I didn't ever actually understand it. So yes I'd agree, maths teaching in this country doesn't work.

As for OP, do update in a month, and TF for maths capable MNetters.

LaPerduta · 26/04/2023 23:09

I agree. I'm a similar age to the OP and didn't take maths beyond GCSE. There's no way I'd be able to do something like trigonometry or quadratic equations without some revision, but the more basic stuff should be taught in a way that sticks and I think for most people that means they need to understand it.

Original poster
IncompleteSenten · 26/04/2023 23:15

Probably bit of both and other factors.

I never could understand it. It made bugger all sense to me.

I don't even know a basic such as my times tables by heart. I have to chant through them.

We weren't taught the old way of reciting them IE one times two is two two times two is four three times...

We were just taught 2, 4, 6, 8, ... So if I'm asked now what's X times y, I have to chant through.

That bit I think is a failure in teaching method but the rest is probably just me.

Between a calculator, the internet and not being in a job where I need to do anything hypotenusey or need to figure out how fast a train is going by working out how long it took to pass someone on a platform I live just fine. 😁

OP posts:
Iamnotthe1 · 26/04/2023 23:30

LaPerduta · 26/04/2023 23:09

I agree. I'm a similar age to the OP and didn't take maths beyond GCSE. There's no way I'd be able to do something like trigonometry or quadratic equations without some revision, but the more basic stuff should be taught in a way that sticks and I think for most people that means they need to understand it.

Cognitive science tells us that all knowledge decays over time: automaticity is lost and the neural pathways that you previously used to access that knowledge fall out of use (for lack of a better term). The only way to combat this is to retrieve, rehearse and re-encode that knowledge at relatively regular intervals. It's not about how well it's taught, nor the method used to teach it: it's about how frequently you use it.

Yes, typically speaking, this problem would have been solveable by a child somewhere between Y6 and Y8, depending on the child. However, they are accessing the necessary knowledge frequently so their ability to retrieve what they've learnt from long-term memory (and apply it in context) is usually stronger than in adults.

Firstliftlastcall · 26/04/2023 23:34

I reckon you can get at least 44 in. Two layers of 16, one layer of 10, then 2 down the end.

This is partly maths and partly visualising shapes and space. Not being good at this does not make anybody thick.

Iamnotthe1 · 26/04/2023 23:36

I don't even know a basic such as my times tables by heart. I have to chant through them.

We weren't taught the old way of reciting them IE one times two is two two times two is four three times...

We were just taught 2, 4, 6, 8, ... So if I'm asked now what's X times y, I have to chant through.

That bit I think is a failure in teaching method but the rest is probably just me.

This is because you weren't taught your times tables: you were taught a song/chant. That's what you gained automaticity with and so that's what you recall from long-term memory. You don't know 7 x 8 but you do know the 7 chant up through the 8th number. This is something that has changed significantly in the way in which maths is taught because things like times tables and number bonds can become automatic procedural knowledge in a way that problem solving can't.

The alphabet is the same. If you ask an adult to tell you which letter is 4 letters after i, most cannot do it without running through at least some of the song.