Omnimaga
General Discussion => Other Discussions => Math and Science => Topic started by: ruler501 on January 12, 2011, 08:43:14 pm
-
The Rules:
1) A asks a question, the rest will try to answer.
2) A must confirm which answer is correct.
3) Person (say B) with confirmed correct answer then asks the next question.
4) A can't win right after B
5) Repeat.
6) If person asking question doesn't login to confirm answers within 96 hrs of his question being posted, any one can ask a new question.
7) If no one can answer question within 96 hrs or can't get the right one, questioner can ask again.
8) Use personal knowledge to answer questions don't use the internet or teachers
9) If answer has been confirmed and the new questioner hasn't set a question in 96 hours, anyone can ask the new question.
10) You can ask questions on any aspect of mathematics
11)Calculators are allowed and encouraged :thumbsup:
Lets start with an easy one:
You are told a functions slope at any given time is x-1 What is the equation?
-
ln(x) I think... My calculus skills are a little fuzzy
-
ln(abs(x)) works :)
-
calcdude84 gets it he asks the next question
-
Yay :D
Here's one (calculator is helpful): What is the 2nd digit after the point ('.') when 10 is converted to base pi^2?
-
You can have a base of pi squared? Don't bases have to be integers?
-
Nope ;D
-
You can have a base of pi squared? Don't bases have to be integers?
if log bases had to be integers, so would exponent bases.
-
there is an answer you just have to work out each place value
10's spot would be equal to pi^2 1 would still be ones The first decimal place would be pi^-2 The second decimal place would be pi^-4
11.11 in base pi^2 = 10.981191567
-
Yeah, I found out a method of converting between non-integer bases. I'll take a crack at it later.
-
int(ln(10)/ln(pi*pi)*100)
-
Why are you converting it to an integer?
-
Why are you converting it to an integer?
he wants the second digit after the decimal place, and a digit cannot have a fractional part. i multiply by 100 to get the second digit. i'm too lazy to calculate it out
-
Oh, I see. I would have just left it as is, and counted to the second digit after the decimal. I don't deserve credit for the answer, but it is 7.
-
I got 100.011... as the answer. So I'm gonna say 1.
EDIT: just realized mine is wrong.
-
actually it would have to be
int(ln(10)/ln(pi*pi)*100) % 10
% = mod for those who don't know.
anyway, i suppose i'll answer. 0.
-
I think I have it but I can't post an answer to this question I asked the question before this
-
I think I have it but I can't post an answer to this question
is it different from 0 1 or 7? i'm fairly confident 0 is the answer, graph misused my expression and i'm unsure what sir did.
-
I don't think its any of those three. just work it out by each place starting with what would be the tens but is now the pi^2 then keep working down till you get to the second decimal place or the pi^-4
calcdude84se told me I have the right answer Now I'll work it to the 5th decimal place
-
Ruler PM'd me with his answer and it is correct. Good luck to the rest of you! :D
-
I got 2.
-
Doing the math again, I believe it is around 10.128
Whoa, ninja'd by 3 seconds.
-
Runer and Graph are correct. :D
However, since Runer got it first, it's his turn to ask.
-
Runer and Graph are correct. :D
However, since Runer got it first, it's his turn to ask.
BY 3 SECONDS!
Fine, I look forward to runner's challenge. ;-)
-
I got 10.12999999...
how'd you get the 10.128?
freaky I posted at the same time as nemo
-
ohh. like the number system pi squared... that would've been helpful to know.
i'm curious as to what runer will come up with
-
I got 10.12999999...
how'd you get the 10.128?
I actually rounded after I knew I found the terminating digit. 10.129999... still has 2 as the 2nd digit.
-
Why'd you put 8 as the third decimal digit though? that was what I was asking
-
Why'd you put 8 as the third decimal digit though? that was what I was asking
Because I did this on my calc, and it started doing weird results the smaller the number. So like 5.68e-22 or whatever. I could have continued, just chose not to. 8 is probably not accurate. It would get more accurate, the more accurate pi is. I could write a program on my computer to do this out to 1000 decimal places. But I only need 2.
-
The third digit is indeed 8, as verified by a calculator on a PC, but that's irrelevant :P
-
I haven't actually figured this out yet myself, but it sounds like an interesting challenge, so:
Find the smallest positive integer that has at least 5 factors (including 1 and itself) for which the number of 1s in its base 2 representation equals the number of factors.
I hope this doesn't end up being too ridiculous to figure out. :o
EDIT: Reduced the minimum number of factors to 5.
-
My calculator said nine I'll have to check that. How did you get your answer I just tried to make it more accurate at each decimal place
Runner did you mean have the ones in its binary form when added together equal the number of factors? Are you talking about prime factors?
Do they need to be seperate prime factors? if not it would be 125 or 1101111 factors are 125*1, 5*25, 5*5
Edit: Never Mind I'm temporarily stupid
-
Runner did you mean have the ones in its binary form when added together equal the number of factors?
Yes. By the way, is it ok that I changed the question slightly to reduce the minimum number of factors? Because now that I looked at it 6 is actually too easy :P
-
64?
edit: sorry i just made a program to figure it out and realized this makes no sense. disregard.
nevermind, it was a bug in the program. 63!
-
Yeah, 63 is it. I probably should've thought a bit more before picking a question with, once you see it, such an obvious answer. :P
-
126 actually. 63 only has 5 factors including itself.
-
What? I counted 1, 3, 7, 9, 21, and 63.
-
Yeah, 63 is it. I probably should've thought a bit more before picking a question with, once you see it, such an obvious answer. :P
yeah, but it seemed tricky. it was a cool problem. i'll think about what my question will be...
-
What? I counted 1, 3, 7, 9, 21, and 63.
Okay, wait, then you have to define factors here. 3*3*7=63. So I thought you meant that kind of factor. And you just reduced it to 5, too. By my definition:
3=7
4=15
5=110
6=126
7=720
8=1215
9=8019
10=10206
So since I was confused, who gets it? I thought factors as in it's prime factorization.
-
Very Interesting problem wish I had thought it through more/seen your edit about 5 factors instead of 6 and I had been working with prime factors
-
Well it turns out the answer had 6 factors anyways :P
-
Well it turns out the answer had 6 factors anyways :P
So who wins? and 6 prime factors or what?
-
I didn't specify that the factors had to be prime (didn't intend to specify it either, but I understand the confusion) so nemo got it.
-
I didn't specify that the factors had to be prime (didn't intend to imply that, but I understand the confusion) so nemo got it.
Okay. From now on, I think we need to specify random stuff. For example:
No, that balloon isn't traveling the speed of light, but e^9.25 under it.
-
I think Nemo should get it. He got the correct answer first
-
I think Nemo should get it. He got the correct answer first
Oh, I understand. Ninja'd once, ninja'd twice. ;-)
-
you guys want a really hard one? i came up with one but i don't even know where to begin to solve it.
-
you guys want a really hard one? i came up with one but i don't even know where to begin to solve it.
Do it. I need something to sleep on while I sleep.
-
I need something to work on lets see how hard it is. Might help me sleep. I could use it then
-
ok. find the 2x2 matrix whose determinant equals the sum of the upper left hand corner and the bottom right hand corner. the matrix must be filled with prime numbers only.
to be clear:
[2 7]
[3 5]
the determinant is 2 * 5 - 3 * 7, or -11. the upper left hand corner is 2, and the lower right hand is 5. so if this was the winning matrix, 2 + 5 would have to equal 2 * 5 - 3 * 7.
2 * 5 - 3 * 7 is the determinant of that matrix. questions? ambiguities?
just to warn you, i have no idea if such a matrix exists or not. it's just a question i made up.
-
The only real hard part about this should be the prime numbers The other part should be easy enough
-
[2 1]
[1 3]
? Not sure if 1 counts as prime...
EDIT: Nevermind, 1 isn't prime. ;) Anyways I remembered I need to be quiet for this question, I'm not allowed to answer.
-
[2 1]
[1 3]
? Not sure if 1 counts as prime...
oh, sorry. no 1 does not count.
edit: and i found a matrix. a lot of them, actually...
edit2: and any of them will be accepted.
edit3: yeah i found 242 matrices that work within the first 100 primes... so it's definitely doable.
-
[5 7]
[7 7]
Edit: nvm, this is backwards.
-
penguin, that doesn't work because the determinant is negative 12 and 5+7 is positive 12.
-
[7 7]
[5 7]
That's better.
Edit:
I solved it right the first time, I just forgot what I was solving.
-
yeah, the penguin wins.
[97][19]
[5] [2]
::)
-
[5 3]
[5 5] this and many other ones work just solve x^2-2x-Bx=0 with B being prime and look for prime zero's
Now I need a much harder problem to help me sleep.
EDIT: Shoot i was to late.
-
[5 3]
[5 5] this and many other ones work just solve x^2-2x-Bx=0 with B being prime and look for prime zero's
Now I need a much harder problem to help me sleep.
EDIT: Shoot i was to late.
same problem but with perfect numbers instead of prime numbers? that'll keep you up for a long time.
-
Here is a tough one. I once attempted this and failed, but when I went online, I found out that I went about it wrong. But I still believe I did it the right way. The problem comes from http://xkcd.com/135/, problem 1. All I am saying is solve it.
Here's what you have to assume:
1. The person's speed is always 6 m/s.
2. The raptor's top speed is a mathematical limit, not just a point at which it stops accelerating. Meaning that its recursive forumula is V[n] = V[n-1] + 4 - (4V[n-1]/25).
3. Even if this isn't the proper way to solve it, this is the way I say to do it.
At this point, I don't know the answer, but if you show some meaningful work, I'll have to believe it.
-
I just solved this so it is possible. I couldn't do the final collision step by hand because it had both an X in a power as well as an X, so I just did an intersect. But good luck to all.
Remember: 1 + x^1 + x^2 ... x^n == (1-x^(n+1))/(1-x)
-
i am way too lazy to solve it.. sorry
-
I should have it by morning I couldn't work on it today had UIL
I'll just edit the answer into the post if noone else has answered it by then
Its number 1 on this comic right:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/substitute.png)
-
That's the one.
-
haha nice comic
-
I'm not going to have time to work on this... sorry I'd love to solve just have lots of homework and have to go to clubs
EDIT: The problem does not give us enough information there are multiple ways you could solve this. Ask another question Its been nearly 4 days
-
Sorry, forgot about this. I'm out of questions. I'm in Colorado, so I accidentally left my work at home. But the answer was like 6.9 something.
First one to ask a question gets it.
-
what is the fifth decimal place of 10 when converted to base phi^2
If I don't figure it out before you just show me proof and I'll have to believe it
I will be solving this tomorrow so please give me proof if you post before then
-
seems a bit like the last one? Either way I can't solve this one either x.x
-
phi^2 == 2.61803399
10 in binary is 1010 so it should be close to that. anyway.
phi^2 ^ -5 = 0.00813061876
phi^2 ^ -4 = 0.0212862363
phi^2 ^ -3 = 0.05572809
phi^2 ^ -2 = 0.145898034
phi^2 ^ -1 = 0.381966011
phi^2 ^ 0 = 1
phi^2 ^ 1 = 2.61803399
phi^2 ^ 2 = 6.85410197
phi^2 ^ 3 = 17.9442719
10 / 6.85410197 = 1.45898034, mod = 3.14589803 (that is eerily similar to pi..) 1
3.14589803 / 2.61803399 = 1.20162612, mod = .527864045 1
.52786404 / 1 = .52786404, mod = .527864045 0.
.527864045 / .381966011 = 1.38196601, mod = .145898034 1
.145898034 / .145898034 = 1, mod = 0 1
0 /.... ok etc.
110.11 is 10 in the phi^2 base. there really isn't a 5th digit after the decimal place, it's assumed to be a 0.
gosh all those decimals look really bad and then i come up with the answer 110.11 which looks harmless..
-
That looks good so you can have it. Technically it would have one since it is an irrational number but I'll except just 2 digits because it might take alot of digits to make it to 5 digits
-
i'm pretty sure it's 110.11, a terminating decimal.
i'll have a new question soon.. just gotta think of one
-
Wait, not finished...
EDIT:NEVER MIND
TO convert a base from base 10 to some other base, do log(x)/log(a) where a is the base you want to convert to.
So log(10) is 1
1/log((sqrt(5)+1)^2/4) is your answer
2.3924859833
-
That only works to convert between different log bases we're talking about number bases.
-
Yep, sorry, just caught that. Sorry, lack of sleep :P
I get:
(sqrt(5)+3)/2=phi^2→D
10/D^2=1.458980338...
First digit=1
.458980338*D=1.201626124
Second digit=1
Decimal=.201626124....*D=.527864045
10 % phi^2=
11.527864045
phi^4+ph^2+.527864045...=10
So the 5th digit after the decimal is 6
EDIT: I forgot the /2 part of the (sqrt(5)+3)/2
EDIT: There is a mistake if anybody can catch it...
-
(sqrt(5)+3)/2=phi^2→D
D is equal to phi, not phi squared.
wait: i'm wrong. my bad. i'll keep looking.
-
I am fairly sure (sqrt(5)+3)/2 is phi^2 or do you mean D is supposed to be phi?
Ninja :D
-
oh. you forgot the ones place.
edit: well, the "phi^2 ^ 0" place. aka the ones place.
-
Nope, that's not it :D. The decimal part is in base 10, not base phi^2 (and happens to be the "ones" place)
-
but the question asks to convert 10 into base phi^2... so if 11.52786 is in base 10 how does this answer the question? i believe 10 in base phi^2 is 110.52786... i messed up on the decimals the first time but try convert 11.52786 from phi^2 to base 10 and you will not get 10.
-
The ones place eists in all bases. In bases it goes up to one less than the number of its base because the tens place is really the base^1 place.
@Nemo Irrational numbers can't make terminating decimals. If you add enough digits you will get more decimal places. If you add an infinite decimal places that are in an irrational number you get an irrational number as the answer a non terminating decimal. The only numbers that can be displayed without an endless decimal place are integers between it and negative it, and multiples of it
-
Oh, yeah, oops. Yes, you are correct about the 110 part, but the decimal part of that is in base 10 :D Think about how you do decimals in binary. 11010.011101 for example...
011101/1000000 is the decimal .453125
In other words, the decimal part that you have needs to be converted to base phi^2, too. You can do this by applying basic division techniques. (long hand ;) )
-
i've never done decimals in any other base but 10. alright, i get how that part is in base 10. so if it's in base 10 then does that answer the question or not? because it isn't in base phi^2, so it can't. does my answer work?
wait, nevermind, i see how you would do it. but i'm way too lazy to do all that math out on paper.
-
I would write a program to do it for me if I was you guys.
-
I would write a program to do it for me if I was you guys.
Which is exactly what I did, and I got:
110.1021111111111111111
So the fifth digit is 1.
-
That seems more rational than the other things we were getting I'm very tempted to believe it.
could I see your code to check it so I can see if your right?
-
That seems more rational than the other things we were getting I'm very tempted to believe it.
could I see your code to check it so I can see if your right?
Sure, but don't expect it to be readable or nice and tidy. I just barely got it working, so I'm not entirely believing my answer although it should be fairly simple to check:
http://graphmastur.pastebin.com/29VSHcUX
-
I'll give it to graphmastur His code looks right
-
I believe it is correct, though I did not look at the code :P
(If it isn't then a month from now I will make mention of it :D)
-
If it isn't right a month from now we'll all have to remove graphmastur from the game... right?
-
Hehehe, mwahahahaha. Eh-zactly. So I wonder what magic this next question will perform...?
-
Given a square matrix M (2 x 2 matrix), and it's determinant, and that some matrix K multiplies by M gives the 2 x 2 matrix N, find K.
You are given det(M)=12. All values in M are prime.
You are given det(K)=-1316. All values but one in K are prime.
You are given N=[ [ 252 , 1792 ] [ 384 , 2668 ] ]
Knowing the matrix K multiplied times the matrix M = N, find K and M.
-
that's eerie. i found 1316 matrices which are all prime and have the determinant -1316. working on the other part though. (between the primes 2-499 that is)
-
that's eerie. i found 1316 matrices which are all prime and have the determinant -1316. working on the other part though. (between the primes 2-499 that is)
Yep, that sounds about right. I have two matrixes that I have, but I think there might be an infinite number of them. Who knows.
-
i just tried prime numbers under 1000, found 3868 matrices with a -1316 determinant and 6366 with a 12 as its determinant. should i have found two that multiply together to get N by now?
and it doesnt work up to 2000, i get the feeling going higher is useless, and i probably have a bug in my program somewhere i can't find. i feel kind of bad making java loop a hundred million times.
-
Has anyone made any progress on this?
-
i'm working just not having much time trying to learn C++ and my compiler won't work so reinstalling it and my IDE.
Have Algebra work and English Homework :banghead: :mad:
I'm making a little headway should be done soon if I have time to work on it
-
Has anyone made any progress on this?
i'm just waiting for you to tell me if i should find the matrix within the first 1000 primes. i.e. i took all the matrices comprised of the first 1000 times whose determinant is 12 and multiplied them by all the matrices comprised of the first 1000 times whose determinant is -1316, and i still didn't get a product of N. is my program broke? or is it larger than that (in which case, i'm not wasting 10 minutes of my time waiting on the JVM to multiply primal matrices.)
-
I thought that was a bug in my program I didn't get any either.
graphmastur are there any under 1000 if not how high do we need to set the upper limit
-
Actually, every prime is under 100.
EDIT: People seem to be having difficulty with this, and I've gone over all the math, and I see why.
N=MK, not KM.
KM=[ [ 1832 , 1636 ] [ 1228 , 1088 ] ]
MK=[ [ 252 , 1792 ] [ 384 , 2668 ] ]
-
Actually, every prime is under 100.
that's good to know, now my program executes quickly... but to no avail, i cannot find the two matrices.
-
Actually, every prime is under 100.
that's good to know, now my program executes quickly... but to no avail, i cannot find the two matrices.
See my post edit just above yours.
-
Actually, every prime is under 100.
that's good to know, now my program executes quickly... but to no avail, i cannot find the two matrices.
See my post edit just above yours.
one step ahead of you, i anticipated that possibility and already ran my program for KM, MK, KK and MM. could you define 2x2 matrix multiplication for us?
[2, 5] * [11, 29] = [87 , 143]
[7, 9] [13, 17] [194, 356]
is this correct matrix multiplication?
-
Actually, every prime is under 100.
that's good to know, now my program executes quickly... but to no avail, i cannot find the two matrices.
See my post edit just above yours.
one step ahead of you, i anticipated that possibility and already ran my program for KM, MK, KK and MM. could you define 2x2 matrix multiplication for us?
[2, 5] * [11, 29] = [87 , 143]
[7, 9] [13, 17] [194, 356]
is this correct matrix multiplication?
Yes, that is the correct way to do matrix multiplication.
-
alright, this is the closest i've come.
K:
[ 5 ][ 83 ]
[ 17 ][ 19 ]
M:
[ 13 ][ 11 ]
[ 19 ][ 17 ]
Product M * K:
[ 252 ][ 1288 ]
[ 384 ][ 1900 ]
i found 8 matrices which had 2668 as their last element (both MK and KM).
-
Matrix M is correct. The first column of Matrix K is correct.
Wow, Nemo just pointed out an obvious error. I meant to say all but ONE were prime. My bad.
-
K = [[5 93][17 53]]
M = [[13 11][ 19 17]]
-
K = [[5 93][17 53]]
M = [[13 11][ 19 17]]
That's correct. So I was basically an idiot. I was supposed to have it be "all but one" where prime for K. oh well nemo gets it.
-
wish I had known that I've been bug checking so much... :banghead:
Wonder what the next question will be???
-
if i'm traveling at a rate of 40 mph, my destination is 120 miles away and i've been traveling for two hours, how long until i reach my destination. just kidding you probably did that in your head as you read it. the real question is on the way, i'm currently solving it..
edit: the problem.
constituents:
2x2 matrix N
2x2 matrix P filled with ascending perfect numbers. i.e. if 1 2 3 and 4 were perfect numbers, P is [[1 2][3 4]]
2x2 matrix K whose values ascend just like P's, and is filled with only prime numbers, and the values when summed add up to 185.
Assuming P * K = N, what is the determinant of N? also, i want to see matrix P and K to check to make sure you solved the problem correctly. answers without P or K will be disregarded.
edit2: shoot i forgot! the determinant of K must be -2735...
-
haha, tricky. it is 1.5 hours. You are going to swim with the current.
-
what are perfect numbers again I forgot
-
numbers whose factors sum up to the original number (excluding the number itself). 28's factors are 1, 2, 4, 7, 14. 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28. 28 is a perfect number.
-
Ooh, those look yummy! I knew that 6 was a perfect number because 1+2+3=6, but I didn't know the definition. Thanks!
.../me goes off to make a black-hole with her calculator
-
*ruler builds black hole shelter and cowers from zeda
-
No prime numbers are perfect numbers, right? Sorry, I just like it when random rules of math pop up, even if they are obvious :D
/me cannot do math...
Sorry, I can only do math as I think about it, I cannot do it critically.
-
Xeda, have you been through the Ph.D indoctrination process yet, where they remove all of your abilities to do math and replace them with amazing abilities to think about doing math? :p
-
>.>
<.</me always knew there was a secret government program to erase memories...
-
I'm seventh grader they haven't gotten to me yet.
Must retain ability make cloak to preserve it...
-
Hurry! We must protect the youth!/me is disappointed in herself for getting taken advantage of... She has ninja skills and a calculator!
-
/me has Penguin skills and a Prizm
V
<(")
-
Calculators can no longer protect us, what does this mean for society...
WE WILL ALL DIE
-
What happened to this topic? O.O
-
Since the topic has gone out the window, I will superimpose myself and offer the next math puzzle :P For this solution, you need more than an answer, you need a method, since the answer can be derived through a program that runs through millions of possibilities.
Dogs cost 15.00$, cats cost 1.00$, and mice cost $0.25. How can you spend $1000 and buy 1000 animals? And you MUST buy at least one of each :P
-
Erm, here is what I got...:
15D+1C+M/4=1000 and D+C+M=1000
15D+C+M/4=D+C+M
15D+M/4=D+M
14D=3M/4
56D=3M
I don't want to hurt any puppies or mice...
-
Buy 1000 cats :P
I actually went to all of the trouble of making a brute force calculator too.
Ninja'd by Xeda.
-
And you MUST buy at least one of each
-
8)
-
Xeda is that an answer or just speculation? o.O and Qwerty i said you have to buy more than just cats :P
-
Well, you would need 56/3 mice for every dog...
-
So can I continue with my numerical simulation?
-
Sure :P Whoever provides both the correct answer and mathematics behind it first wins ^^
-
whoa, whoa. wait. what about my question (http://ourl.ca/8731/166499)?
i guess you guys missed it
-
Oh O.O I thought everybody was talking about random things because they had already solved a puzzle, i really haven't been keeping up
*hides*
-
Oh O.O I thought everybody was talking about random things because they had already solved a puzzle, i really haven't been keeping up
*hides*
haha no harm no foul. i checked this topic earlier wondering why it looked like randomness and now i just saw a new problem and was like "wait... it hasn't been 96 hours yet..."
-
heh well we will wait for a day or two and let everybody work on yours then :)
-
if i'm traveling at a rate of 40 mph, my destination is 120 miles away and i've been traveling for two hours, how long until i reach my destination. just kidding you probably did that in your head as you read it. the real question is on the way, i'm currently solving it..
edit: the problem.
constituents:
2x2 matrix N
2x2 matrix P filled with ascending perfect numbers. i.e. if 1 2 3 and 4 were perfect numbers, P is [[1 2][3 4]]
2x2 matrix K whose values ascend just like P's, and is filled with only prime numbers, and the values when summed add up to 185.
Assuming P * K = N, what is the determinant of N? also, i want to see matrix P and K to check to make sure you solved the problem correctly. answers without P or K will be disregarded.
edit2: shoot i forgot! the determinant of K must be -2735...
K=[[2 43][67 73]] but P is not determined so how are we supposed to know what the determinant of N is?
-
Let's say we have a piece of 64 byte data in L1 (pretend also that it's in axe format)
with data supposed to be set up in a 4x4x4 3D array, The first 16 bytes of the 64 are [1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,16,17,18], the next 16 bytes are [19,21,22,23,25,26,27,29,30,31,33,34,35,37,38], and the last 24 bytes are [52,53,55,56,58,59,61,62,63,65,67,69,71,73,75,77,79,81,83,85,87,89,91,93].
Find a function (can utilize equality operators such as = and >) that shows the pattern of these 64 numbers.
EDIT: and good luck.
-
Erm, did the rules change...?
-
oh, sorry :(
but then again, now there's two challenges at once, in case you're stuck on one.
-
Err... three actually, now :D
-
oh, lol :P
-
Is this a new problem? But no one has solved nemo's or Builderboy's problem yet and I'm really confused about nemo's.
well if it is a new problem then i'm also sort of confused thay are'nt even 64 numbers ther(16+16+24=56)
-
For the first one, if you have a Y table of {1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,16,17,18} that correspond to x values {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14} and Axe automatically rounds down for decimals, then:
(X+1)+X/4
I'm gonna work on the others, now.
Edit 1: If the second set uses a similar pattern, the equation is x+(x-1)/3+19
Edit 2: The third set is (x+52)+x/2. Now I need to find an equation for all this :D
-
if i'm traveling at a rate of 40 mph, my destination is 120 miles away and i've been traveling for two hours, how long until i reach my destination. just kidding you probably did that in your head as you read it. the real question is on the way, i'm currently solving it..
edit: the problem.
constituents:
2x2 matrix N
2x2 matrix P filled with ascending perfect numbers. i.e. if 1 2 3 and 4 were perfect numbers, P is [[1 2][3 4]]
2x2 matrix K whose values ascend just like P's, and is filled with only prime numbers, and the values when summed add up to 185.
Assuming P * K = N, what is the determinant of N? also, i want to see matrix P and K to check to make sure you solved the problem correctly. answers without P or K will be disregarded.
edit2: shoot i forgot! the determinant of K must be -2735...
K=[[2 43][67 73]] but P is not determined so how are we supposed to know what the determinant of N is?
P is defined as 4 perfect numbers in ascending order. a perfect number is a number whose factors sum up to the number itself. 6 is a perfect number. its factors are 1 2 and 3 which, when summed, equals the number itself: 6.
ashbad, i'm confused about your question. storing data linearly then thinking about it as a 4x4x4 3D array for a math problem wasn't to my advantage so i discarded that portion. and you only listed 54 pieces of data so i really don't know where you got the number 64 other than 4 * 4 * 4 is 64. anyway. here's the function though i don't really deserve it. i just plugged in Xeda's equations and hope they work.
f(X)=((X+1)+X/4)*(X<15)+(X+(X-1)/3+19)*(X>14)*(X<30)+((X+52)+X/2)*(X>29))
-
Ya i know but there are more than 4 perfect numbers so we have no idea what P is. ??? the first 4 are 6 28 496 and something more than 8000. but they are more more so we do not know yhich one are in the matrix.
Also Ashbad there are ifinitley many functions that satisfy it. ??? are we supposed to find all or just one?
-
Is this a new problem? But no one has solved nemo's or Builderboy's problem yet and I'm really confused about nemo's.
well if it is a new problem then i'm also sort of confused thay are'nt even 64 numbers ther(16+16+24=56)
well, there is, I just didn't specify what 8 of the bytes were ;)
and sorry xeda, incorrect.
-
[1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,16,17,18] is 15 bytes.
-
oops O.o ok just imaging a 19 there :P
-
f(X)=((X+1)+X/4)*(X<15)+(X+(X-1)/3+19)*(X>14)*(X<30)+((X+52)+X/2)*(X>29))
so is this a no-go or what?
-
f(X)=((X+1)+X/4)*(X<15)+(X+(X-1)/3+19)*(X>14)*(X<30)+((X+52)+X/2)*(X>29))
so is this a no-go or what?
that is correct!
nice nemo :)
-
Ah, but the equation can be made without piece-wise functions, too.
-
the determinant of N is -95396800. Or a possibly infinite other numbers. all negative I believe.
-
the determinant of N is -95396800. Or a possibly infinite other numbers. all negative I believe.
yeah, you win.
-
How many questions are left open right now I'll ask the next one tomorrow morning my time.
Lets try not to have 3 open questions again
EDIT: The Problem Show proof of answer
Assuming the 15 kilogram object is constantly being pushed at 100,000 Newtons how long will it take to go a light-year?
e=m*c^2
f=m*a
e=(m*c^2)/√(1-v^2/c^2 )-m*c^2
E= energy in Newtons
M= mass in kilograms
A=Acceleration in Meters per second per second
C= the speed of light in meters per second
V = velocity in meters per second
EDIT2: How are you guys doing?
-
Wow, yeah. This is definitely not my kind of thing. Also, I just want to point out that it has recently been discovered that certain "laws" of physics don't actually work in the far reaches of the universe (meaning some equations will need to be altered). I think one of them involves gravity.
-
Should I post a new problem or will anyone try to solve this?
@Zeda That is very interesting.
-
It's not something that I can do, so I am not going to attempt it.
And yeah, I read it in some sciency magazine I got in the mail. I thought it was pretty cool.
-
Open Floor anyone can ask a question
(Just please don't be another one on determinants)
-
So you have the determinant of this matrix... j/k
Okay, so given a function f(x) = N mod X, which is a recursive function. eg, the result becomes the new X. However, it goes over a little transformation first. N mod floor(f(x)*N/(N mod f(x))-> X Given this pattern for X, find N:
541, 4551, 51587, 3...
-
Simple program I'll right it later when I have time
EDIT is this the first values of the series and is it the beginning
541, 4551, 51587,
-
Simple program I'll right it later when I have time
EDIT is this the first values of the series and is it the beginning
541, 4551, 51587,
I started at 451. And it's been much longer than 6 hours, and I barely noticed your edit. I don't know if it is the beginning, you would have to try going backwards, and I don't want to do that, nor do I know how to do that well, with the floor() and all.
-
So I'm assuming no one has gotten it. To tell the truth, I don't even remember the answer. it was like 77,000 something.
-
I got confused and have been having way to much to do so I couldn't work on it. You want to ask another one?
-
here's something that's been troubling me for a program i'm writing:
given two variables x and y, find an equation that will produce z. a table is given below.
2|3|4 x
1|4 6 8
2|3 3 2
3|2 1 .
4|1 . .
y
so in your equation, when you put 3 in for x and 2 in for y, you get 3. when 2 is put in for x and 4 in for y, you get 1. etc.
do not worry about the periods in the table.
i don't know the answer, so good luck.
-
Is this using Axe math or regular math?
-
regular math.
-
Okay... Well the most obvious patterns that I can see that might be used is that the first column follows 5-y and the second follows ((4-Y)^2+(4-Y))/2. The third column only has two data points so you can pretty much fit that to any number of equations. If I have time I will try to create an equation of multiple variables.
-
Z=(2x+1)-(y+x-1).
Nope, the function has to be nonlinear:
z=(2x+1)-(y+(x-2)⌊-log3(y)+1⌋⌊-log3(x)-1⌋+(x-2)⌊-log2(y)+1⌋⌊-log4(x)-1⌋