You are not logged in.
I won't coerce you but lemme guess... has it got something to do with anagrams?
I found a lewd one with the answers
Look at any term, say 3(7[sup]2[/sup]), and you'll observe that 7 = (2×3+1)
observe... T[sub]1[/sub] = 1(3)[sup]2[/sup] = 1(2×1+1)[sup]2[/sup]
T[sub]2[/sub] = 2(5)[sup]2[/sup] = 2(2×2+1)[sup]2[/sup] etc
We can say that T[sub]n[/sub]= n(2×n+1)[sup]2[/sup]
NOTE: Its true that you'll have to guess it.
Most of the times, they will always be easy (of the form n(an+b)) in the questions given in your textbooks and exams.
Curve fitting is another idea that you just don't need in your school.
- not a job that appeals to me, I regret...
........sigh......
old fermat
Specifically, only the squares of 4 through 50 are eligible, and it's a pretty simple matter to brute force. As it happens there is exactly one such pair of squares - 13 & 14.
That's really tricky but now i got it (after checking the maximum difference possible between two numbers who's Last Two digits are same, may be in different orders)!!
In short, the numbers you are looking for are the squares of 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 30, 38, 40, 50, 60, 62, 70, 80, 88, and 90, and any multiple of 100 plus any of those numbers except 13 and 14.
Your last sentence again holds a Lot of Information! Thx!!
For the second method you should note that in multiplication the final two digits of the product are decided solely by the final two digits of the multiplicands. Again you can simply brute force numbers from 4 to 99 and check by hand. For squares found using this method you can add any multiple of 100 and it will still work. Aside from the obvious multiples of 10, the squares that fall under this category are 12, 38, 62, and 88.
I'll try and see if some sort of Algebraic method can help give those numbers
Earlier i was wondering if big perfect square xxxxxxxxxab exists such that xxxxxxxxxba is also perfect square (a,b≠0). Now i see that such a number can't be any greater than 7744
Thanks dude
Hi again phrontister!
part-A was quite easy but charming
part-B? I'm already panicked by your repetitive instructions to use a computer to solve it.
Nonetheless, I'll give a try!!
I learned C when in Second year of my Four year Engg course and my sis (who has command over more than 7 different programming languages) tried to teach me CPP some years back.
I still have a fair idea of C but 've forgotten most of the other things coz of not using them for 3 years!
Although I like your proposition yet i'd like to know how to work it out using Algebra?
I just wanted to find all the Perfect Squares (except 0, 1, 4 and 9 ) such that if their Unit's and Ten's digits are interchanged, the resulting number is again a Perfect Square!
I know a few .
How can I find ALL SUCH Perfect Squares??
Right again
by using this value of v, you'll get a[sub]s[/sub] ∼ 734.41 m/s[sup]2[/sup] instead of 729 m/s[sup]2[/sup].
that's correct!!
but only to a few decimal places!
that's coz you've taken v = 10.8 ∼ 10.8444
you should get Force ∼ 73.441 ∼ 73.5 with v = 10.84
use v[sup]2[/sup] - u[sup]2[/sup] instead of v[sup]2[/sup] + u[sup]2[/sup] and plz make it 0.08 m instead of 0.8 m!!!
by solving it in the method which you explained first , i got
first v=10.8next a =6.4
F=0.64N
, which is the wrong answer as per the textbook.were did i go wrong?
use 10.8[sup]2[/sup] - 0[sup]2[/sup] = 2a[sub]s[/sub]0.08
this should give you a[sub]s[/sub]=734.41 m/s[sup]2[/sup]
can you tell me what exactly did you do?
SHORTCUT:
From the Law of Conservation of Energy....
mgh = (1/2)mv[sup]2[/sup] = work done by the opposing force = Force × distance covered
where m = mass (0.1 kg)
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]
h = height of fall (6 m)
⇒ 0.1×9.8×6 = Force×0.08
⇒ Force = (0.1×9.8×6)÷0.08
6357 <--- cetchup
6370
(1+3=4) digit Prime numbers with 6, 3, 7, 0.
3067 is a Prime number.
3607 is a Prime number.
6037 is a Prime number.
6073 is a Prime number.
6703 is a Prime number.
7603 is a Prime number.
Oh yeahh.... I have just edited my previous post!
I have many such physics related doubts. Can I post them here at Mathsis fun???
While solving the first part by your method, do we get
is that correct?
Just a small error...
its ∼ 10.8 (m/s)
plz recheck the decimal point.....
And why of course YES! You can always post your maths/physics problems here (MIF should agree with me here ).
Somebody will always be here to help!!
6344
6344[sup]th[/sup] Prime number is 63317
There's your evil number again Tig
Hi soha...
Part-1: To calculate the Velocity of the stone just before it starts penetrating the sandy bed (v).
Velocity of the stone when it just starts penetrating the sandy bed can be calculated using v[sup]2[/sup] - u[sup]2[/sup] = 2a[sub]g[/sub]s
where v = final velocity of the stone (when it just starts penetrating the sandy bed)
u = initial velocity of the stone = 0 m/s (coz nothing's mentioned except that it just falls)
a[sub]g[/sub] = acceleration due to gravity = 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]
s = distance covered = 6 m (distance covered while falling.. given)
Part-2: To calculate the Acceleration due to sandy bed (a[sub]s[/sub]).
Now use the relation v[sup]2[/sup] - u[sup]2[/sup] = 2a[sub]s[/sub]s
here v = final velocity of the stone = 0 m/s (coz it comes to rest after penetrating 8cm)
u = initial velocity of stone (when it just starts penetrating the sandy bed) = the value of v that you will get from Part-1.
a[sub]s[/sub] = acceleration due to sandy bed
s = 8 cm = 0.08 m (distance penetrated.. given)
Part-3: To calculate the Force exerted by the sandy bed (F).
Now use F = M × a[sub]s[/sub]
where F = force exerted by sandy bed (you have to find out)
M = mass of stone = 0.1 kg (given)
a[sub]s[/sub] = acceleration due to sandy bed = value of a[sub]s[/sub] that you got from Part-2.
I'm not gonna solve it fully for you
Hopefully that helps...
Let know if you still have any problems
6318
Hi Tigeree!
that's cool
the tring tring one can be explained but lets leave that part right now
and chuck wud be chafed if he comes to know of you
I can wait till then (just don't forget ok)
And i'd like to know what's special bout the answer according to you and mathsyperson??
Might be that I couldn't discover it....
6292 = (1 + 3) × (11) × (11) × (13)
Its a nice search engine.
I tried 169 and it says I forgot something
Doesn't work quite good for Large numbers though
e.g. I tried 16553 and it returns the following searches...
Taj ul-Alam
and
Seth Gilliam
etc which don't prove to be any help, whatsoever, to me!?
only Chuck Norris (better known at "The Chuck" <-- pronounced as "Da Chuck" or "Chucky") can do this...
Q: What is the e-mail id of Chuck Norris??
A: