ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 277 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-30-06 | | themadhair: To give a gentle hint to <OhioChessFan>'s puzzle directly above - work out what value C must be first and start from there. Here is a triumph of logic - can you deduce that at least two people in the world have the same number of hairs? (Arguing that there are two bald people doesn't count) |
|
Sep-30-06 | | arctic tern: <OhioChessFan> A=2,B=6,C=1,D=0,E=4. 26*1.04=27.04=26+1.04 |
|
Oct-01-06 | | themadhair: <arctic tern> Can you prove that it is a unique solution? |
|
Oct-01-06 | | arctic tern: <themadhair> Good question, I think so but I will work on it. |
|
Oct-01-06 | | arctic tern: 'Proof' of uniqueness:
AB*C.DE=AB+C.DE. Assume that A through E are >=0, and further that A!=0. Then AB>=10. Then C!=0, because otherwise AB*C.DE<AB+C.DE. Since C.DE<10 by assumption, if C>=2 then AB*C.DE>2*AB but AB+C.DE<2*AB so AB*C.DE<AB+C.DE. Therefore C=1 necessarily.Now we have AB*1.DE=AB+1.DE. Rewrite this as AB(1+0.DE)=AB+AB*0.DE=AB+1.DE.
=> AB*0.DE=1.DE
=> AB=1DE/DE multiplying through by 100.
Now we need to find a fraction of the form 1DE/DE whose quotient is a two digit integer AB. Since AB>=10, this immediately restricts the available options for DE to anything <12. We observe that DE=02,04,05,10 all yield two-digit integers and therefore represent solutions to the original equation, but only DE=04 yields a solution for which all five digits are unique (the other fractions yield integers with a '1' which is also what C is). Therefore AB=26=1.DE/0.DE=1.04/0.04 and this is necessarily the only solution in which all digits are different. The 3 other solutions, incidentally, are
AB=51=1.02/0.02
AB=21=1.05/0.05
AB=11=1.10/0.10
QED, I think.
Apologies for the rather colourful nature of this post, btw. Chessgames is not set up for math symbols. |
|
Oct-02-06 | | themadhair: I bow to you sir. |
|
Oct-05-06
 | | OhioChessFan: <Sneaky> per the motorcycle, I think the handlebars were carried off with the curtain. One of the models appears to be standing on a box which wasn't there before, so some portion of the bike is hidden in it. That's as far as I've gotten. Maybe a better computer would let me get a better look at the video. |
|
Oct-08-06
 | | OhioChessFan: One proof of the AB*C.DE=AB+C.DE problem:
For the sum & product of two numbers to be the same, if the first is x the second is of the form x/(x-1) or 1+1/(x-1). This is easily proved.
In this case, x is a 2 digit number (AB) & C=1
1/(x-1) = y/100 (where y is a one or two digit number). This means that (x-1) divides 100. Since (x-1) cannot have more than two digits it does not equal 100. Check out the other possibilities
x has 2 digits so (x-1) cannot be 2,4 or 5
(x-1)=50 implies that x=51 (oops: B=1=C)
(x-1)=20 - same problem: B=1=C
This leaves x-1 = 25; so x=26 & 1/(x-1) = 0.04
So: A=2; B=6; C=1; D=0; E=4 |
|
Oct-08-06
 | | OhioChessFan: A more intuitive answer:
if ABxC.DE=AB+C.DE, subtracting C.DE from both sides and reordering terms, we get C.DE=AB/(AB-1). Since AB and (AB-1) are relatively prime to each other, 1/(AB-1) must be a non-repeating fraction, so AB-1 must divide 100, which allows just a few values.
Running through those values, AB=26 solves the problem. |
|
Oct-09-06
 | | OhioChessFan: What are the next 5 numbers in this sequence?
28, 32, 34, 32, 34, 36, 40, 38, 38, 40, 36, 38, 40
|
|
Oct-09-06
 | | OhioChessFan: ** Hint to the above problem **
** **
1. The sequence could also be:
27, 28, 32, 34, 32, 34, 36, 40, 38, 38, 40, 36, 38, 40 |
|
Oct-10-06 | | themadhair: Require another hint.... |
|
Oct-10-06
 | | OhioChessFan: ** Another hint **
The items in the sequence are sums. What series produces those sums? |
|
Oct-13-06 | | themadhair: I accept defeat. |
|
Oct-14-06
 | | OhioChessFan: ** Another hint **
The sequence of numbers is infite, and all will continue to be even numbers. |
|
Oct-14-06 | | ughaibu: Next: 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 42, 42, 40, 38, 40, 48 |
|
Oct-14-06 | | norami: When I was in 8th grade my teacher said that if you flipped a fair coin a few times you might get a skewed result but the more you flipped it the more chance things would even out and you'd get 50% heads. I said not true, if you flipped it a million times you'd probably get CLOSE TO 50% but probably not EXACTLY 50%. The teacher said no, if you flipped it a million times it would almost certainly even out and you'd almost certainly get exactly 500,000 heads. At that point I gave up - no use wasting time arguing with an idiot. The question remained open - if you flip a coin a million times what is the probability you'll get exactly 500,000 heads? |
|
Oct-14-06
 | | OhioChessFan: ** Answer to Stumper of October 9 **
Starting with the 2nd and 11th prime (3 and 31), these numbers are the differences between successive pairs of primes... 31 - 3 =28
37 - 5 =32
41 - 7 =34
43 - 11 =32
47 - 13 =34
53 - 17 =36
59 - 19 =40
61 - 23 =38
67 - 29 =38
71 - 31 =40
73 - 37 =36
79 - 41 =38
83 - 43 =40
89 - 47 =42
97 - 53 =44
101- 59 =42
103- 61 =42
107- 67 =40
|
|
Oct-14-06 | | arctic tern: <norami: When I was in 8th grade my teacher said that if you flipped a fair coin a few times you might get a skewed result but the more you flipped it the more chance things would even out and you'd get 50% heads. I said not true, if you flipped it a million times you'd probably get CLOSE TO 50% but probably not EXACTLY 50%. The teacher said no, if you flipped it a million times it would almost certainly even out and you'd almost certainly get exactly 500,000 heads. At that point I gave up - no use wasting time arguing with an idiot. The question remained open - if you flip a coin a million times what is the probability you'll get exactly 500,000 heads?> The probability that you'll get 500,000 heads is very small but more likely than getting 499,999 heads and 500,001 tails, and so on. The exact odds of it are (1000000 C 500000) / 2^1000000 where 1000000 C 500000 = 1000000!/(500000!*500000!)
if I've done the calculation correctly, which my computer is now furiously trying to evaluate. I guarantee it will be a tiny number. |
|
Oct-15-06 | | norami: <arctic tern> Strangely enough, another formula that also works is 1/2 times 3/4 times 5/6, and so on, until the final factor 999999/1000000. |
|
Oct-15-06
 | | Sneaky: <The question remained open - if you flip a coin a million times what is the probability you'll get exactly 500,000 heads?> Easy... sort of. The concept is simple but by picking a number as large as a million you create an awful lot of work to figure out the result. The question is the same thing as asking, "Of all the million digit binary numbers, how many have exactly 500,000 1's?" Let r = # of million digit binary numbers, so r= 2^1000000. Now let n = the # of million digit binary numbers with half a million 1's. We can find n with the "choose function", you would say "one million choose half-a-million" and the formula for this is 1000000!/500000!*500000! That's a huge number, but a lot smaller than 2^1000000. So the answer is n/r. Unfortunately those are some incredibly large numbers so normal tools are insufficient to compute them. Since I have a Macintosh I have access to the powerful Unix tool "bc" which can handle integers of virtually any length, but even for "bc" these kinds of calculations could take hours. Before we have our computers spend all night figuring out 1,000,000 factorial, let's solve the problem with a much nicer value of r, let's say "1000 coin flips." My computer quickly digests these numbers and comes back with the probability .0252, or 2.5 percent. Next let me try something more extreme, let's say 10,000 coin flips. After a much longer pause, it comes back with the answer .0079, or 0.8 percent. It's gone down! Finally let's try 20,000 coin flips. What are the odds of getting exactly 10,000 heads? Now it take almost a minute to come up with the answer, and that answer is .0056, still lower. Clearly, the more flips you make, the less the odds of realizing an exact split. I can't estimate how low it is when you hit one million but I think this could be enough to convince your teacher of her folly. |
|
Oct-15-06
 | | Sneaky: <arctic tern> Seems you are on the same track I am! Unlike you, I have no interest in spending all night burning CPU's to find the answer but if you are going to do the work I'll be curious to learn the answer. <Ohio> <Per the motorcycle, I think the handlebars were carried off with the curtain. One of the models appears to be standing on a box which wasn't there before, so some portion of the bike is hidden in it.> Are you speculating that this is some kind of George Jetson motorcycle than can be taken apart almost instantly and parts of it collapse into a briefcase? No sir, you are way off. In fact let me say that the concept is very old--from the 19th century--it has nothing to do with any radical technology. It's a little bit tactless to pose this as a "stumper." If you really care about it, I invite you to discuss it on my chessforum. That way I can be sure to remove any message that may expose the secret while still giving you the nod that you figured it out. |
|
Oct-15-06 | | arctic tern: <Sneaky> I've given up on that for the time being unfortunately but I'll play around with it on my workstation at school this week. (I was using the standard microsoft calculator for this and I don't trust it to not tell me 'result is too large' or something like that after a night of calculation.) |
|
Oct-15-06 | | norami: Odds are 1252.3 to 1 against getting exactly 500,000 heads after a million flips. |
|
Oct-17-06
 | | Sneaky: Is that a fact, did you grind it out? Cool. A far cry from what his teacher said. <The teacher said no, if you flipped it a million times it would almost certainly even out and you'd almost certainly get exactly 500,000 heads.> You might ask that teacher, "So, if there was only one flip left and the score was 499,999 heads to 500,000 tails, I suppose it would be a very good idea to mortgage your house and put it all on a wager that 'heads' is going to come up next, right?" But like the man said, no use arguing with an idiot. |
|
 |
 |
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 277 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|