No problem if we use recurring decimals.Liam Tiernan wrote:Next one..........not so easy.
Code: Select all
.
(sqrt(4)xsqrt(4))! + 4/.4 = 33
Moderator: Michael Wallace
No problem if we use recurring decimals.Liam Tiernan wrote:Next one..........not so easy.
Code: Select all
.
(sqrt(4)xsqrt(4))! + 4/.4 = 33
No. This makes 34.Liam Tiernan wrote: 44-(4/.4)=37
Oops. Still can't see 37.Howard Somerset wrote:No. This makes 34.Liam Tiernan wrote: 44-(4/.4)=37
As I see it, the missing ones are now:
37, 39, and 51 onwards.
4*(!4)+(4/4)=37Howard Somerset wrote:As I see it, the missing ones are now:
37, 39, and 51 onwards.
What function is this? Looks pretty helpful.Daniel O'Dowd wrote:
(!4)
I think he means .4 recurring[uhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_decimal#Notationrl][/url]Innis Carson wrote:What function is this? Looks pretty helpful.Daniel O'Dowd wrote:
(!4)
!N is the subfactorial, which gives the number of arrangements of N objects, none of which are in their original positions: it is the nearest integer to N!/e.Innis Carson wrote:What function is this? Looks pretty helpful.Daniel O'Dowd wrote:
(!4)
I most certainly do not! Decimals aren't at all needed. Subfactorial is related to binomial expression, like 5C3 and Pascal's Triangle. =)Liam Tiernan wrote:I think he means .4 recurring[uhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_decimal#Notationrl][/url]Innis Carson wrote:What function is this? Looks pretty helpful.Daniel O'Dowd wrote:
(!4)
in which case 4!+4+(4/.4recurring)=37
Are you regarding recurring decimals as invalid? If not, see post at 9:43 am today (assuming that you're in the same time zone as I am).Matt Morrison wrote:Unless I've missed it, I'm still waiting for 31 to be done properly?
Without doubt. Admittedly using recurring decimals are not as utterly horrible as concatenation (which is totally un-mathematic), but still - Kai said it can be done with out any sort of decimals, so I figure that's the rules we ought to be sticking to. Not just because Kai got this quiz started but because you lot are an intelligent bunch and should appreciate the challenge.Howard Somerset wrote:Are you regarding recurring decimals as invalid? If not, see post at 9:43 am today (assuming that you're in the same time zone as I am).Matt Morrison wrote:Unless I've missed it, I'm still waiting for 31 to be done properly?
OK then.Matt Morrison wrote:Without doubt. Admittedly using recurring decimals are not as utterly horrible as concatenation (which is totally un-mathematic), but still - Kai said it can be done with out any sort of decimals, so I figure that's the rules we ought to be sticking to. Not just because Kai got this quiz started but because you lot are an intelligent bunch and should appreciate the challenge.Howard Somerset wrote:Are you regarding recurring decimals as invalid? If not, see post at 9:43 am today (assuming that you're in the same time zone as I am).Matt Morrison wrote:Unless I've missed it, I'm still waiting for 31 to be done properly?
If we're going without concatenation or any sort of decimal, recurring or not, then we've got a lot of holes, namely:Matt Morrison wrote:Without doubt. Admittedly using recurring decimals are not as utterly horrible as concatenation (which is totally un-mathematic), but still - Kai said it can be done with out any sort of decimals, so I figure that's the rules we ought to be sticking to. Not just because Kai got this quiz started but because you lot are an intelligent bunch and should appreciate the challenge.
No problem with any of these.Liam Tiernan wrote:!4x!4-sqrt!4-sqrt!4=75
!4x!4-sqrt!4-sqrt4=76
!4x!4-sqrt4-sqrt4=77
I'm not sure these are valid under the rule on concatenation.
Can somebody clarify this?
Thanks Howard, thought it might have meant use of brackets.Howard Somerset wrote:No problem with any of these.Liam Tiernan wrote:!4x!4-sqrt!4-sqrt!4=75
!4x!4-sqrt!4-sqrt4=76
!4x!4-sqrt4-sqrt4=77
I'm not sure these are valid under the rule on concatenation.
Can somebody clarify this?
Concatenation mean running two 4s together to make 44.
Awesome, I've got Howard on my side now!Howard Somerset wrote:We have agreed not to go with decimals or concatenation because Kai said we should be able to do it without. Now that Kai has said the same thing about subfactorial, we really should outlaw that too. In which case a whole lot of holes open up. I believe that at least one of decimal/concatenation/subfactorial has been used in each of the following:
26, 31, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 51, 53, 55, 59, 61, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81.
Coincidence, Matt. After a gap of 110 minutes, my edit was almost simultaneous with your post.Matt Morrison wrote:Hmm, did you just edit your post Howard? When I replied there was no solutions, otherwise I wouldn't have given my 26 obviously. Most odd. That or I can't read.
Neil Zussman wrote:31= 4!+(4!+4)/4
Thanks Matt.Matt Morrison wrote:Neil Zussman wrote:31= 4!+(4!+4)/4
Well spotted. I've just looked back and can see two attempts at 33, one of which uses decimals and the other uses the subfactorial. So that's another on the to do list.David Williams wrote:I've not been following this too closely, but can someone refer me to where you've done 33 without using decimals.
I'm still mystified as to what those restrictions actually are, but you're probably right.David Williams wrote:I'm prepared to wager that 33, and doubtless a few others, can't be done under the restrictions you've set yourselves.
Any chance you could clarify the restrictions? It's probably best to specify the minimum (however you want to define that) allowable for it to remain possible.Kai Laddiman wrote:How much?
Well, I did mention it above, but...David Williams wrote:If this is going to go anywhere I think Kai has to say what functions are allowed, rather than what is not allowed. He's clearly using something no-one else is!