Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20121207 20:35:26
Find the number!Find the number with the clues given. You may need to use some math on the way. I start with a problem, and then when people answers, then I make another problem. 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #2 20121207 20:46:28
Re: Find the number!Hi The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #3 20121207 22:58:40
#4 20121208 11:36:41
Re: Find the number!How about the largest number less than 100 that can only be written one way as a difference of Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional). LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make. #5 20121208 12:55:41
Re: Find the number!Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #6 20121208 13:31:54
Re: Find the number!Yep! Privy to a bit of number theory, eh? Would make Fermat smile in his grave. Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional). LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make. #7 20121208 13:57:43
Re: Find the number!Hi noelevans, "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #8 20121208 14:30:30
Re: Find the number!Whoops, bobbym! 97 is a prime number, but is 10/2=97? 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #9 20121208 14:33:34
Re: Find the number!Hi phrontister! Last edited by noelevans (20121208 14:59:47) Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional). LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make. #10 20121208 15:03:34
Re: Find the number!Hi;
There is the Zeckendorf numbers which use Fibonacci numbers as the base. The coefficients do not have to be other than 1 and 0. For instance: Hi julianthemath;
Your problem's answer is 5 , noelevans' problem has the answer of 97. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #11 20121208 16:30:57
Re: Find the number!Zeckendorf representations  VERY INTERESTING! Thanks for pointing them out. Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional). LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make. #12 20121208 16:31:39
Re: Find the number!Hi noelevans,
Glad I spotted that you'd spotted that. I was close to putting pen to paper about my failure in getting the factorization & difference of squares feature to work with 22 and 72, and was looking at testing some other evens and then more odds. "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #13 20121208 18:46:49
#14 20121208 18:54:54
Re: Find the number!II. 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #15 20121208 20:19:54
Re: Find the number!Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #16 20121208 21:17:16
Re: Find the number!Hi julianthemath, "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #17 20121208 21:47:47
Re: Find the number!Okay!
246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #19 20121209 09:37:07
Re: Find the number!Hi;
I like phrontister's answer better. Where that other gets his answer from I can only speculate. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #20 20121209 10:08:10
Re: Find the number!
9 darts into a dartboard? "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #21 20121209 10:09:21
Re: Find the number!Maybe, but he probably would miss the board! In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #22 20121209 10:12:39
Re: Find the number!III. 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #23 20121209 10:12:58
Re: Find the number!I meant thump them in with a hammer...not throw them. "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #24 20121209 10:14:46
Re: Find the number!Hi julianthemath, Last edited by phrontister (20121209 10:17:09) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #25 20121209 10:47:38
Re: Find the number!Hi;
That would be more accurate. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 