Which reinforces my comment that one has to make many assumptions for a poorly written math problem.
This is an interesting comment from the author that came up with the 201 in comment section.
"P.S.: of course I’m speaking a bit tongue in cheek here, since 19 as an answer, even though a mathematically correct solution to the fourth line, would be more a destruction of the riddle than its solution, implying that lines two and three are wrong and the entire thing is rather a hoax or psychological test than a mathematical riddle that actually makes sense. Though I agree with you that theoretically other solutions are possible, I still haven’t seen a solution other than 201 which is both mathematically correct and leaves the riddle intact."
Didn’t read the drivel, 96 I came up with in a few seconds. Probably means I’m an irrational idiot if I read all the responses. Or others can’t be wrong. I’m good with either.
I know the OP said not to explain, but I will explain my answer. The first line is correct, but not relevant. The other two lines are incorrect and still not relevant. The last line is the only one looking for an answer to the the equation which is 19.
What you stated is somewhat correct.
What we are given in the example is a 'mathematical sequence'. Whether the numbers actually are added correctly, in the base 10 system that we normally use, is irrelevant.
The example is asking for an answer to the sequence, as given.
I understand the natural tendency to answer it in sequence, but I don't see where it is directed to answer it in sequence. The other information in the picture could also be simple obfuscation to get you to answer it in sequence. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best.
I reserve the right to be wrong.
Your right, nowhere does it say to figure out the sequence. However, hl nyuf, xgufpsu sequencing, there is no order. So what makes you think that 8+11=19. Because of the base 10 sequence we've been taught. My point is, there is a sequence in the example, and because it is a mathematical sequence, to solve it, you should consider the sequence.
and, like I said before, 'I reckon I'm a dummy'.
Yes, I did consider that there was a possible sequence and went that route first before I backed up and read it again. That is when I realized that the answer in my opinion was far simpler than many were making it out to be.
I don't know how we would ever know the exact answer without asking the original author of the problem what his/her answer is supposed to be. Either it is 19 or the question was written poorly. Math is math and PEMDAS is solid.
I understand what you are saying, however I dont agree. In math, you have to figure sequences or you cant get the correct answer. For example, 2+3x4=? another example 2x3+4=? These are easy examples of having to use sequences or the proper order to get the correct answer. In math, if there are sequences, you have to consider them, unless there are directions saying not to. In our problem, there are no directions.
just my .02
Yes, you are right there are no directions in this problem. If there are no directions then why would one deviate from the basic math principles of PEMDAS? Otherwise they become assumptions.
I dont believe there is a deviation from PEMDAS. There is an order to the problem, a sequence if you will. You are not deviating from the order just because you are not in base 10. Computers count in 1 and 0 and that is in order.
Did you see PD's answer from facebook?
Old Turd- Deplorable- Unrepentant Murderer- Domestic Violent Extremist
Yep read page 1 and 3, I’m good with my quick answer. Wife does the stupid puzzles and only one I can quickly best her on is the illogical appearing number correlation crap. She also is the one who can strategize how to win any board game by throwing Logic to other players before first die is cast so getting one right every blue moon is fun. She refuses to play any game she can’t clearly Game. Come to think of it she hadn’t asked my input on illogical appearing numbers in a while,,,,and she married me,,,, crap,,,,,
I know the OP said not to explain, but I will explain my answer. The first line is correct, but not relevant. The other two lines are incorrect and still not relevant. The last line is the only one looking for an answer to the the equation which is 19.
What you stated is somewhat correct.
What we are given in the example is a 'mathematical sequence'. Whether the numbers actually are added correctly, in the base 10 system that we normally use, is irrelevant.
The example is asking for an answer to the sequence, as given.
I understand the natural tendency to answer it in sequence, but I don't see where it is directed to answer it in sequence. The other information in the picture could also be simple obfuscation to get you to answer it in sequence. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best.
I reserve the right to be wrong.
Your right, nowhere does it say to figure out the sequence. However, hl nyuf, xgufpsu sequencing, there is no order. So what makes you think that 8+11=19. Because of the base 10 sequence we've been taught. My point is, there is a sequence in the example, and because it is a mathematical sequence, to solve it, you should consider the sequence.
and, like I said before, 'I reckon I'm a dummy'.
Yes, I did consider that there was a possible sequence and went that route first before I backed up and read it again. That is when I realized that the answer in my opinion was far simpler than many were making it out to be.
I don't know how we would ever know the exact answer without asking the original author of the problem what his/her answer is supposed to be. Either it is 19 or the question was written poorly. Math is math and PEMDAS is solid.
I understand what you are saying, however I dont agree. In math, you have to figure sequences or you cant get the correct answer. For example, 2+3x4=? another example 2x3+4=? These are easy examples of having to use sequences or the proper order to get the correct answer. In math, if there are sequences, you have to consider them, unless there are directions saying not to. In our problem, there are no directions.
just my .02
Yes, you are right there are no directions in this problem. If there are no directions then why would one deviate from the basic math principles of PEMDAS? Otherwise they become assumptions.
I dont believe there is a deviation from PEMDAS. There is an order to the problem, a sequence if you will. You are not deviating from the order just because you are not in base 10. Computers count in 1 and 0 and that is in order.
Did you see PD's answer from facebook?
Yes I did and it didn't give Randall Jones' answer. I quoted it with another article that came up with 201 as the answer. Reading the comments from the article I posted were pretty interesting and there was a case being made that the answer is 19 using Occam's Razor as a principle. That was where I was going with my answer of 19. I have yet to see anything definitive from Randall Jones as the answer, but I feel the problem is poorly written if the answer is anything other than 19. There are no "Ifs" or "thens" in the equation. There are only assumptions beyond 19.
I dont agree with the 201 answer for a simple reason. In the quinary system of counting, there is no number 6 or 8. Using these numbers in the problem cancels out that system.
Old Turd- Deplorable- Unrepentant Murderer- Domestic Violent Extremist
If you use the Occam's Razor principle, 19 would be the correct answer, assuming you are using base 10. And, assuming goes against the Occam Razor principle, IIRC.
In the problem, I think it's safe to say they are not using base 10.
Old Turd- Deplorable- Unrepentant Murderer- Domestic Violent Extremist
In my defense, I’ve been Imagineering how to fix a network of 5k associates in a global supply chain shortage most of the day, skipping dinner, then working on sheetrock/framing her new Master Closet while chasing a 6 pack. Brain’s already limited in normal state.
If you use the Occam's Razor principle, 19 would be the correct answer, assuming you are using base 10. And, assuming goes against the Occam Razor principle, IIRC.
In the problem, I think it's safe to say they are not using base 10.
Simple assumptions would not go against Occam's Razor. The premise is simplicity however it is not an irrefutable principle.
There’s seemingly 4-5 answers. Of course, I took easy Math vs. Honors when offered a choice and dropped out of HS stumbling through life as a Savant so maybe many more depending on how you invert symbols and manipulate the logic.
I suppose that’s the point of the question though.
Apparently some of you didn't watch the video on my earlier post.
Here's a longer version that explains what all your bickering is about. Take heed. (Do I have to post the whole show, for those of you that didn't read the book? Sheesh)
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
I think 19 is the correct answer if you approach this as a MATH problem: 1+4=5 2+5=12 3+6=21 8+11=19 Because of course, 8+11=19 and always will, independent of the poor notation and mathematical mistakes above it.
However, it is more fun to approach this as a LOGIC problem and for that I can come up with 5 different solutions, all of which are "correct" and many of you have suggested them. First, lets write this as a logic statement:
IF (1,4,5) (2,5,12) (3,6,21) THEN (8,11,?)
The first, and probably simplest solution, is probably to add the first column to the product of the second column multiplied by the line number to produce the third: Line 1 - (1,4,5) Line 2 - (2,5,12) Line 3 - (3,6,21) Line 4 - (8,11,52)
The second solution is to add the third column of the previous line to the first two columns of the current line: (1,4,5) (2,5,12) (3,6,21) (8,11,40)
The third is to add the first column to the product of the first and second: (1,4,5) (2,5,12) (3,6,21) (8,11,96)
The fourth is to recognize and complete the logical progression of 1,2,3... and 4,5,6.., until you reach 8 and 11, then add the first column to the product of the second column and first column (or line number) to produce the third: Line 1 - (1,4,5) Line 2 - (2,5,12) Line 3 - (3,6,21) Line 4 - (4,7, 32) Line 5 - (5,8, 45) Line 6 - (6,9, 60) Line 7 - (7,10, 77) Line 8 - (8,11,96)
The last that I can come up with is to recognize and complete the logical progression of 1,2,3... and 4,5,6.., until you reach 8 and 11, then add the third column of the previous line to the first two columns of the current line (similar to the second solution but completing the progression): (1,4,5) (2,5,12) (3,6,21) (4,7, 32) (5,8, 45) (6,9, 60) (7,10, 77) (8,11, 96)
As you can see there are three ways to reach 96 (yes, 3 and 4 are basically the same but with a slightly different thought process). And I withdraw my previous 116 solution because of an addition mistake! Thanks OP for posting!
I know the OP said not to explain, but I will explain my answer. The first line is correct, but not relevant. The other two lines are incorrect and still not relevant. The last line is the only one looking for an answer to the the equation which is 19.
What you stated is somewhat correct.
What we are given in the example is a 'mathematical sequence'. Whether the numbers actually are added correctly, in the base 10 system that we normally use, is irrelevant.
The example is asking for an answer to the sequence, as given.
I understand the natural tendency to answer it in sequence, but I don't see where it is directed to answer it in sequence. The other information in the picture could also be simple obfuscation to get you to answer it in sequence. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best.
I reserve the right to be wrong.
Your right, nowhere does it say to figure out the sequence. However, hl nyuf, xgufpsu sequencing, there is no order. So what makes you think that 8+11=19. Because of the base 10 sequence we've been taught. My point is, there is a sequence in the example, and because it is a mathematical sequence, to solve it, you should consider the sequence.
and, like I said before, 'I reckon I'm a dummy'.
Yes, I did consider that there was a possible sequence and went that route first before I backed up and read it again. That is when I realized that the answer in my opinion was far simpler than many were making it out to be.
I don't know how we would ever know the exact answer without asking the original author of the problem what his/her answer is supposed to be. Either it is 19 or the question was written poorly. Math is math and PEMDAS is solid.
I understand what you are saying, however I dont agree. In math, you have to figure sequences or you cant get the correct answer. For example, 2+3x4=? another example 2x3+4=? These are easy examples of having to use sequences or the proper order to get the correct answer. In math, if there are sequences, you have to consider them, unless there are directions saying not to. In our problem, there are no directions.
just my .02
Yes, there are directions. Add 1 and 4.
Add 2 and 5.
Add 3&6.
Add 8&11.
Everything else is just some people trying to prove how clever they are by seeking out something that isn't there.
As you can see there are three ways to reach 96 (yes, 2 and 3 are basically the same but with a slightly different thought process). And I withdraw my previous 116 solution because of an addition mistake! Thanks OP for posting!
Yeah, I was hesitant to accept your 116.
Actually all your solutions for 96 can be boiled down to the same right hand sequence s(n) = n(n+4). You can verify that your first solution generates the same sequence 5, 12, 21, 32, 45, 60, 77, 96.
1) Starting from your first solution which is f(x,y) = xy +x which is equivalent to my f(x,y) = x(y+1). We can generate the sequence by constraining y to be x+3. So s(n) = f(n, n+3) = n((n +3) + 1) = n(n+4).
2) Your solutions 2 and 3. Since each line simply adds new terms to the preceding line's results we observe that the n'th line can be expressed as s(n) = (1 + 2 + ... + n) + [(1 + 2 + ... + n) + 3n]. Note that the square brackets contain the sum of all the second terms. Okay so far? But we know that (1 + 2 + ... + n) is n(n+1)/2. Since there are two of them we can drop the division by two and then we just need to add the 3n. So s(n) = n(n+1) + 3n = n(n+4).
Nifty eh?
I also liked the 201 base 3 solution. I'd like to see a Rube Goldberg solution using trig functions but that makes my head hurt. Basically any non linear function that hits the first three data points works. The result for the fourth equation is immaterial.
