Augie Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 3:15 PM, Bray Wyatt said: interesting I did it as ((a+b) x a) - a = c Interesting...I copied off the guy to my left.
Marv's Neighbor Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/12/2017 at 4:45 PM, Royale with Cheese said: 2+3=8 3+7=27 4+5=32 5+8=60 6+7=72 7+8=? Bite me!!
Augie Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 9:20 PM, Marv's Neighbor said: Bite me!! Now, now....use your words!
Doc Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Again, 15. Since when and why did "+" become "make up some weird equation to create math puzzles"?
Augie Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 10:33 PM, Doc said: Again, 15. Since when and why did "+" become "make up some weird equation to create math puzzles"? I think you could get a meadcoin, you should be respectful!
Doc Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 11:18 PM, Augie said: I think you could get a meadcoin, you should be respectful! ...why?
Augie Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 11:35 PM, Doc said: ...why? I'm told they will become worth..........something? Possibly a fraction of a Stromboli! (I've already done enough math, so that's out.)
mead107 Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Get enough meadcoins and you can get a whole Stromboli.
Augie Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) On 10/16/2017 at 11:41 PM, mead107 said: Get enough meadcoins and you can get a whole Stromboli. I'm concerned about how many digits and comas are involved. Is this yen or pesos, or Berkshire Hathaway stock? Edited October 16, 2017 by Augie
Augie Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 11:58 PM, Doc said: 7meadcoin+8meadcoins=? 3.5? Maybe 98....I don't know.
SinceThe70s Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 2:42 PM, JÂy RÛßeÒ said: a+b=c (a+b-1) x a = c if a = 7 and b = 8, c=98. FWIW, I looked at it using a sequence: 1. 2+3=8 2. 3+7=27 3. 4+5=32 4. 5+8=60 5. 6+7=72 6. 7+8=? Using the sequence number, this equation works: a*b + seq*a = c 7*8 +6*7 = 98
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 12:50 AM, SinceThe70s said: FWIW, I looked at it using a sequence: 1. 2+3=8 2. 3+7=27 3. 4+5=32 4. 5+8=60 5. 6+7=72 6. 7+8=? Using the sequence number, this equation works: a*b + seq*a = c 7*8 +6*7 = 98 Same equation. In each case, seq = a - 1. So a*b + seq*a = a*b + (a-1)*a = (a+b-1)*a.
SinceThe70s Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 3:46 AM, DC Tom said: Same equation. In each case, seq = a - 1. So a*b + seq*a = a*b + (a-1)*a = (a+b-1)*a. I was assuming the order of the equations mattered and was independent of a: 3+7 = 3*7 + 3*1 = 24 2+3 = 2*3 + 2*2 = 10
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 12:12 PM, SinceThe70s said: I was assuming the order of the equations mattered and was independent of a: 3+7 = 3*7 + 3*1 = 24 2+3 = 2*3 + 2*2 = 10 Well, I just disproved your assumption, didn't I?
SinceThe70s Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 12:26 PM, DC Tom said: Well, I just disproved your assumption, didn't I? ...or there's more than one possible solution. If we can assume a '+" somehow relates to a*b + (a-1)*a no reason we couldn''t also assume the sequence of the equations has significance. In truth, I like the a*b + (a-1)*a solution better, just thought it was interesting that I came at it from a slightly different angle.
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 1:09 PM, SinceThe70s said: ...or there's more than one possible solution. If we can assume a '+" somehow relates to a*b + (a-1)*a no reason we couldn''t also assume the sequence of the equations has significance. In truth, I like the a*b + (a-1)*a solution better, just thought it was interesting that I came at it from a slightly different angle. Except I already demonstrated that, if sequence is important, it reduces to the previous solution. Or, to put it a different way: if you create a solution for a specific case (where a specific sequence matters), and that solution can be generalized (to a solution that's sequence-independent), the general solution is considered the correct one.
SinceThe70s Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 1:28 PM, DC Tom said: Except I already demonstrated that, if sequence is important, it reduces to the previous solution. Or, to put it a different way: if you create a solution for a specific case (where a specific sequence matters), and that solution can be generalized (to a solution that's sequence-independent), the general solution is considered the correct one. . ..or if your sample set is too limited you could arrive at the wrong solution for all the right reasons.
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 1:47 PM, SinceThe70s said: . ..or if your sample set is too limited you could arrive at the wrong solution for all the right reasons. Which is why the general case is preferred to the specific case.
Recommended Posts