For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Add one to the last number to get a successor and add one to each successive successor nineteen times.Philosophy Explorer wrote:How do you get from these four numbers: 1 2 3 4 to 24?
Add one to the last number to get a successor and add one to each successive successor forty two times.How do you get from these four numbers: 2 3 4 5 to 48?
Add one to the last number to get a successor and add one to each successive successor seventy three times.How do you get from these four numbers: 3 4 5 6 to 80?
I was thinking 1+2+3x4Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:46 pm How do you get from these four numbers: 1 2 3 4 to 24?
Add one to the last number to get a successor and add one to each successive successor nineteen times.
I didn't phrase the question "How do you get from the last number to the target number?" All four starting numbers in each set participate equally toward the target number.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:23 am How do you get from these four numbers: 1 2 3 4 to 24?
How do you get from these four numbers: 2 3 4 5 to 48?
How do you get from these four numbers: 3 4 5 6 to 80?
Study them well.
PhilX
Your frustration is showing. You won't find them on the internet as I did make them up. The only number puzzle book I would have is the one I write myself. Btw I don't figure you to be a mathematician so I wonder what attracts you here?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:55 pm Towards idiot. And unless you have made these up yourself there's not a lot of point in posting them. You could just google them or get them out of your number puzzle book and post thread after thread of them.
Right. Just like you 'wrote' that thing you copy-pasted. Plagiarist. You are the biggest idiot I have ever encountered, and on the internet that's really saying something.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:13 amYour frustration is showing. You won't find them on the internet as I did make them up. The only number puzzle book I would have is the one I write myself. Btw I don't figure you to be a mathematician so I wonder what attracts you here?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:55 pm Towards idiot. And unless you have made these up yourself there's not a lot of point in posting them. You could just google them or get them out of your number puzzle book and post thread after thread of them.
PhilX
I defy you to find where I copy-pasted from and you can get Arising to help you out because I know it's not on the internet.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:30 amRight. Just like you 'wrote' that thing you copy-pasted. Plagiarist. You are the biggest idiot I have ever encountered, and on the internet that's really saying something.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:13 amYour frustration is showing. You won't find them on the internet as I did make them up. The only number puzzle book I would have is the one I write myself. Btw I don't figure you to be a mathematician so I wonder what attracts you here?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:55 pm Towards idiot. And unless you have made these up yourself there's not a lot of point in posting them. You could just google them or get them out of your number puzzle book and post thread after thread of them.
PhilX
Prove it, visitor from outer space.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:51 am Not everything is on the internet. I mean, please. A rabidly nationalistic, barely literate yank moron, who has never before strung together more than one sentence on here, two at the most, suddenly writes an ENTIRE paragraph in English rather than bastardised-by-Americans English?? Give me a break. It's not hard to tell when someone hasn't written something him/herself.
I don't need to prove it. Just the fact that you used the correct 'towards' not just once, but twice in the paragraph was proof enough, not to mention the fact that you didn't have a clue what most of it was about. This is how examiners can weed out plagiarists. Apart from obvious clues it's an almost instinctive thing. Not that I care, but you are such a little weasel who likes to be as annoying as possible that you deserve to be exposed as a plagiarist.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:02 amProve it, visitor from outer space.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:51 am Not everything is on the internet. I mean, please. A rabidly nationalistic, barely literate yank moron, who has never before strung together more than one sentence on here, two at the most, suddenly writes an ENTIRE paragraph in English rather than bastardised-by-Americans English?? Give me a break. It's not hard to tell when someone hasn't written something him/herself.
"...barely literate yank moron..." Can I add this one to my resume too?
PhilX
I don't see why as my answer is correct but if you wish to be picky.Philosophy Explorer wrote:I didn't phrase the question "How do you get from the last number to the target number?" All four starting numbers in each set participate equally toward the target number.
Try again.
Start with the first number and add one to get a successor(which will be the same number as in your pattern) and add one to each successive successor twenty two times.Philosophy Explorer wrote:How do you get from these four numbers: 1 2 3 4 to 24?
Start with the first number and add one to get a successor(which will be the same number as in your pattern) and add one to each successive successor forty five times.How do you get from these four numbers: 2 3 4 5 to 48?
Start with the first number and add one to get a successor(which will be the same number as in your pattern) and add one to each successive successor seventy six times.How do you get from these four numbers: 3 4 5 6 to 80?
Is that in your secret files on me? My oh my. (btw your secret files on me are woefully inadequate).vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:11 amI don't need to prove it. Just the fact that you used the correct 'towards' not just once, but twice in the paragraph was proof enough, not to mention the fact that you didn't have a clue what most of it was about. This is how examiners can weed out plagiarists. Apart from obvious clues it's an almost instinctive thing. Not that I care, but you are such a little weasel who likes to be as annoying as possible that you deserve to be exposed as a plagiarist.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:02 amProve it, visitor from outer space.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:51 am Not everything is on the internet. I mean, please. A rabidly nationalistic, barely literate yank moron, who has never before strung together more than one sentence on here, two at the most, suddenly writes an ENTIRE paragraph in English rather than bastardised-by-Americans English?? Give me a break. It's not hard to tell when someone hasn't written something him/herself.
"...barely literate yank moron..." Can I add this one to my resume too?
PhilX
(if I'm so annoying, then why don't you add me to your foes list?)Not really because you're adding 22 with the first set of numbers, 45 with the second set and 76 with the last set.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:39 amI don't see why as my answer is correct but if you wish to be picky.Philosophy Explorer wrote:I didn't phrase the question "How do you get from the last number to the target number?" All four starting numbers in each set participate equally toward the target number.
Try again.
Start with the first number and add one to get a successor(which will be the same number as in your pattern) and add one to each successive successor twenty two times.Philosophy Explorer wrote:How do you get from these four numbers: 1 2 3 4 to 24?Start with the first number and add one to get a successor(which will be the same number as in your pattern) and add one to each successive successor forty five times.How do you get from these four numbers: 2 3 4 5 to 48?Start with the first number and add one to get a successor(which will be the same number as in your pattern) and add one to each successive successor seventy six times.How do you get from these four numbers: 3 4 5 6 to 80?
All the numbers are participating equally towards the result.
Not really, I'm adding one to the first and then producing the rest by adding one to the next. It fits the pattern you gave, i.e. it produces the pattern you gave and it reaches the correct result.Philosophy Explorer wrote: Not really because you're adding 22 with the first set of numbers, 45 with the second set and 76 with the last set.
PhilX