just for fun... See if you can determine how I came up with these numbers. There's a pattern.
0, 1, 15, 40, 85, 156, 259, 400, 585, 820 ...

just for fun... See if you can determine how I came up with these numbers. There's a pattern.
0, 1, 15, 40, 85, 156, 259, 400, 585, 820 ...
Tough one(as always) as I cant find a linear recurrence relationship.
Is RiverRat here???
There isn't one equation that governs all of the numbers. They're just related in the way they're obtained, which isn't really through an equation.Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
Come on all you smart people in this forum, don't let this fool you. I know you can do it.
Just work on the first three values actually, then test the rest from there. It's not difficult once you get the concept, which can be obtained through the first couple numbers.
Ok, this is incomplete, but I'll just give it a try.
0, 1, 15, 40, 85, 156, 259
(1*0), ( 2* 1/2), ( 3*5), ( 4*10), (5*17), (6*26), (7*37)...
The first number in the bracket (i.e 1,2,3,4...) indicates the position of the term in the pattern.
As for the second number ( 0, 1/2, 5, 10, 17, 26, 37...)
The difference between these numbers is ( 1/2, 4.5, 5, 7, 9, 11...)
I'm not sure about the first 2 terms ( 0.5 and 4.5) but for all the next terms, they are consecutive odd numbers.
So, excluding the first 2 terms, the numbers in the pattern are products of their position in the pattern and a number that , when having the previous one in the pattern subtracted from it, would give you consecutive odd numbers... ( I know, this is really badly explained, needless to say, probably wrong...)
I never would've thought of anything that complicated, you're much smarter than me.
0=0+0+0+0 base 0
1=1+1+1+1 base 1
15=8+4+2+1 base 2
40=27+9+3+1 base 3
85=64+16+4+1 base 4
156=125+25+5+1 base 5
259= 216+36+6+1 base 6
............
Or 1111 in each base. Yep, you got it.Originally Posted by zebeke
It's not totally right though.
Base 0 is 1+0+0+0=1
Base 1 is 1+1+1+1=4
So the row should be
1,4,15,40,85,156,259,400,585,820,1111,...
:)
True, I didn't catch that. But actually, I also didn't catch that you can't have 1s and 0s in bases 0 and 1, because the numbers you use for one digit can only be smaller, so it doesn't matter anyway.Originally Posted by zebeke
Lame but fun question: what's everyone's favorite base? Mine is 12. Divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, it's way more convenient than 10 (and will be handy if we grow some extra fingers). If we could keep track of such large numbers, base 60 would be even better, but given our mental limitations, 12 take the cake.
So why'd they abandon the imperial system?Originally Posted by serpicojr
Because I wasn't there to stop them.
or x³+x²+x+1
0³+0²+0+1= 1
1³+1²+1+1= 4
2³+2²+2+1= 15
3³+3²+3+1= 40
4³+4²+4+1= 85
etc....
:wink:
Let D be a circular dish of radius z and depth a. What is the content of D?
Oh dear, thats so lame, sorry folks.
« Inverse functions  Help to create Turning Machine » 