| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:55 pm Post subject: 1 |
|
|
ok, ive had enuff, this one has been driving me nuts for so long ive given up...
the whole thing is to use numerals 2,2,9, and 9 and the following operations:
+
-
*
/
!
sqrt
^
( )
to write expressions equal to each number from 0 to 132 inclusive. all easy enough, so why am i stuck on 94???
can you help out - use two 2s and two 9s to express 94... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
UnheardVoice
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:39 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
Questions:
With the sqrt operation, it doesn't "use up" one of the twos?
And can I combine the twos and nines together to make larger numbers like 92, 29, 99, and 22?
And do I have infinite amount of each operation?
If YES to all, then:
94 = (92 + 2)^(sqrt sqrt sqrt sqrt sqrt sqrt... [infinite] of 9)
= (94)^(1)
= 94
But I could be wrong.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:00 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| yes to all except the infinite number of operations, sorry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
miketrig
Icarian Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:26 pm Post subject: 4 |
|
|
This is how I got 94:
94=99-sqrt(9)-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:50 pm Post subject: 5 |
|
|
That uses three nines and only one two. I thought two of each were required.
[This message has been edited by Chuck (edited 01-29-2002 10:51 AM).] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 4:01 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
you can ONLY and at the same time you MUST use both 2s and both 9s.
using three of one and one of the other is not acceptable |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hey_herb
Camp_Counselor
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 4:46 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
How about
9^2 + 9 + 2 + 2 = 94
or is using a square considered using a 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 5:36 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
well did you use it or not?
you could use 9x9 instead, which would rob you of that extra 9 which you need later... thats the whole puzzle - to use the four numerals only and all of them |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Icarus
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:57 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
I hope I remember my math.
9!, if I remember correctly is 9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=45, right ?
So how about 9!*2 + (9/2)
You get 94.5, but you simply drop the decimal ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Icarus
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:57 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
I hope I remember my math.
9!, if I remember correctly is 9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=45, right ?
So how about 9!*2 + (9/2)
You get 94.5, but you simply drop the decimal ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:12 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
| 9! = 9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1 = 362,880 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:26 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
oh no, you dont simply drop the decimal, and please ppl, i have given some time to the puzzle so dont give me answers with 3 digits of one kind or however else twisting the rules... i think the rules are clear enough.
and as pointed out, factorial is got by mulitplying all the integers down to 0, excluding 0.
the most "tricky" (geeez) part of the rules is that you can use sqrt wiht OR without losing a 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:50 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| I know we can't drop the decimal, but can we add one? For example, 9/.2 = 45 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ghost Post
Icarian Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:03 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
nah i dont think the king(who i cant even think of a name for)would like that because
1 you have to use all of the numbers(silly)
2 .2=0.2 not 2(thats what you call brain science)
believe me, there is no easy solution to this lark, using numbers to find answers is one of my strong points, the only solution i thought of was using the same method as richard, BAH...
[This message has been edited by johnny4444 (edited 01-29-2002 04:06 PM).] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:41 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
i got to the point where i started toying with the idea that a totally crazy loop of going into stupidly big values and dropping back would give me the 94, but idk...
thinking of something like... oh... sqrt(9)^92! - 2 ... or blahblahblah and then just take the right number of square roots off of that... but thats just hitting for one number in a gazillion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
richardb
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:51 am Post subject: 16 |
|
|
Noting that (sqrt(9))! = 6,
94 = 92 + sqrt((sqrt(9))!-2) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HappyMutant
Daedalian again
|
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:02 am Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| *applause* |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:21 am Post subject: 18 |
|
|
DUH.... stupid me.... thnx a lot richard!!! gr8 work!
so ok, now im SURE... all integers 0... 132 inclusive can be expressed in similar ways using two 2s and two 9s. i think 107 was a tricky one too...
if you guys want to go on through all of them i wont stop you, if you dont care about the rest of them i consider this thread killed... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ghost Post
Icarian Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 8:16 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| excelent, now by rule of hamtofry, gives richard a frog(if he joins) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:23 pm Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| We could start again with 133. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ctrlaltdel
Member of the Daedalians
|
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:40 pm Post subject: 21 |
|
|
ok lets see how far we can get... i tried a few things on 133 but i can only get three 2s and two 9s so far...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|