talkmagic.co.uk

I know, the programing functions were put in as a bit of a laugh. NOT to be taken seriously. Although I fail to see why they are not seen as mathematical functions when in fact they most definatly are.

crozboz

2 x 2 x 2 ≈ 7

loved your thinking

neyak...

2
SIGMA [(k*n)/(10n) * 2] = k
n = -2

where k*n and 10n is just written as (n+n+n+n....)

Why is this allowed and 2 squared not. The second 2 in 2^2 is not a number but a readable charactor shorthand for 2^n for n=2
or nxn. Or to get just one 2 in the writting down.... nxn n=2 or nxnxn n=2
why is nxnxn for cubed not allowed when n+n+n+n+n...for 10n is?

The difference is this:
In your case, you say n=2, i.e. n is a constant and hence nothing but another way of writing a number. When you say
n+n+n+n+n = 10, then you just write "n" instead of 2.

In my examples, n is a variable without one definite value and the outcome is the result of a definite integral, for example.

In other words, what you end up with for 10 is just 5n, i.e. your answer is expressed in terms of the constant. But when taking a sum or integral, with given limits, the variable disappears by substituting in the -2 and 2 that form the limit.

I admit this explanation isn't very good. Could someone with some background in maths possibly explain it more clearly?

This has escalated from a simple maths puzzle which ANYONE was capable of joining into a full-blown pi$$ing contest.

With the permission of the thread originator, I'd like to split this thread into two: the 'original' puzzle, and the 'look who's got the biggest plonker' puzzle.

true.
i enjoyed it to start with.
still can't get them all mind, i think 7 is still eluding me

Sorry to take it slightly beyond the realms of standard algebra, it's just that "I can resist anything but temptation" to quote Oscar Wilde and it looked like a neat solution to me.

I shall promise not to continue with this, so unless other people decide to take up working with stuff that is more than simple +-*/! etc, I hope there's no need to split this thread.

PS: I don't actually think it's possible to do it just using those standard methods, but I haven't worked out a proper proof yet - and I may choose not to do so anyway to save everyone who's not into maths from going completely insane.

seige wrote

With the permission of the thread originator, I'd like to split this thread into two: the 'original' puzzle, and the 'look who's got the biggest plonker' puzzle.

A not so very subtle way of telling me to shut up . But well put and nessesary
Apologies, I am as excited by mathematics as some here are in magic. Did not mean to turn it into a nerd fest. I just got...well a bit carried away....

Hey: I didn't mean to spoil the party, as I too was one involved in the digression from standard maths—I am guilty as charged!

I just thought it may be nice to split the post so the 'maths techies' can continue their discussion, and the more humble of us can stick with standard maths

No offense was meant... (but I still reckon I was right heheheheeh)

seige... no offence taken

I have them all now...exept 7...grrrr

1. 2 - (2/2)
2. 2 x (2/2)
3. 2 + (2/2)
4. √(2x2)^2 (aka Square root of 2 x 2 squared)
5. (2 / 0.2) / 2
6. 2 + 2 + 2
7. ARGH !!!
8. 2 x 2^2
9. (cant remember 9...Its writtem down at home somewhere, gimmie a few days to find it)
10. √(2 / 0.2)^2
11. 22/2
12. (2 / 0.2) + 2

as far as I was aware, ANY mathematic funcvtion was allowed...forgetting that some of you would want to use sigma's etc, lol - If anyone can remember 7...I'll give them a big kiss to tell me

This came up at work one in an email...the whole office spent about 2 weeks trying to get them all, lol...its taken 4 days here...(and we still cant get 7...grrrr)

also...there is more than one answer per number - the answers posted are mine + the guys from work - but many of you guys have the right answers too

Damn number se7en.......grrrrr

Trevor...

You specifically said NO DECIMALS OR ROUNDING UP

and yet I see a lot of decimal places in your solutions!

oh...I really didnt explain this half as well as in the email we got at work...I meant to rounding up of decimals...:S

so you cant get a value of 2.9 and call it 3

(I really should have just cpoiued and pasted the email into a thread *slaps head* DUH!)

Sorry

Dan

CHEAT CHEAT CHEAT!

so when you say only 3 2's that means we're allowed to use 0's too? i see.

Lawrence wrote:so when you say only 3 2's that means we're allowed to use 0's too? I see.

My point entirely sir L.

Using correct mathematical notation, a decimal MUST be preceded by a zero. Therefore rendering the use of decimals in the calculation to be VOID.

mmmmmmmmmmm......perhaps you could cut and paste that original e-mail for us mr Magical_Trevor. It would be nice to know the rules

I have little hair as it is!