Math folk..help

1, 2, 7, 24, 82...... how do I determine the formula for this string of numbers and obtain the next few?

Is this relatively simple and I am just an idiot? Ok...don't answer that last part...
«1

Comments

  • DennisG wrote: »
    1, 2, 7, 24, 82...... how do I determine the formula for this string of numbers and obtain the next few?

    Is this relatively simple and I am just an idiot? Ok...don't answer that last part...

    x3, plus all the previous numbers. Fail.

    2x3+1
    7x3+1+2
    24x3+7+2+1, etc.
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    x3, plus all the previous numbers. EZ game.

    2x3+1
    7x3+1+2
    24x3+7+2+1, etc.

    How do you go from 1 to 2 using that?
  • Quimby wrote: »
    How do you go from 1 to 2 using that?

    Fail.

    Seemed right at the time.
  • I can't for the life of me figure this out.

    Btw last night the CBC's test the nation confirmed I am a genius. (Subtle enough barg?)
  • DennisG wrote: »
    1, 2, 7, 24, 82...... how do I determine the formula for this string of numbers and obtain the next few?

    Is this relatively simple and I am just an idiot? Ok...don't answer that last part...

    Where does this string come from?

    Did some guy just give you 5 numbers or do you know it's a series?
  • DennisG wrote: »
    1, 2, 7, 24, 82...... how do I determine the formula for this string of numbers and obtain the next few?

    Is this relatively simple and I am just an idiot? Ok...don't answer that last part...

    It seems that once you get past 1, 2 then you can calculate a number by adding all of the previous numbers, and then adding 2x the previous number.

    So the next number in the sequence would be 1+2+7+24+82+(2x82) = 280

    and the one after that would be 1+2+7+24+82+280+(2x280) = 956
  • DataMn wrote: »
    It seems that once you get pas 1, 2 then you can calculate a number by adding all of the previous numbers, and then adding 2x the previous number.

    So the next number in the sequence would be 1+2+7+24+82+(2x82) = 280

    and the one after that would be 1+2+7+24+82+280+(2x280) = 956

    I think we said the same thing in different ways (Sequence works out the same)

    The 1 does not compute.
  • #x2+any previous #'s.

    1x2+0=2
    2x2+1=5

    FAIL
  • Milo wrote: »
    #x2+any previous #'s.

    1x2+0=2
    2x2+1=5

    FAIL

    I think we said the same thing in different ways
  • DataMn wrote: »
    It seems that once you get past 1, 2 then you can calculate a number by adding all of the previous numbers, and then adding 2x the previous number.

    So the next number in the sequence would be 1+2+7+24+82+(2x82) = 280

    and the one after that would be 1+2+7+24+82+280+(2x280) = 956

    Yes, 280 was the apparent next number...

    It was one of those guess the next numbers game...the 1, 2, part is what also confused me as well... The string was made up by a friend, and when I told them it wasn't possible with the 1, 2, they used a real world scenario..building a pyramid starting with one brick.... then two bricks...then 7?? bricks.. The logic is failing me..which is why I am asking..

    I see 1, 3, 6 ???

    edit...ok...so...all the bottom row values are 1, second row values, 2..etc..and as we keep adding bricks to each row..the value of each row increases by 1, and 2, and 3...etc..to build this pyramid..

    mathematically is seems to work after the 7...but fuck..without the pyramid reference how would one figure that out? Smoke pot?
  • DennisG wrote: »
    1, 2, 7, 24, 82...... how do I determine the formula for this string of numbers and obtain the next few?

    Is this relatively simple and I am just an idiot? Ok...don't answer that last part...

    24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week, 2 weeks in a month... oops, FAIL!
    (or 82 minutes in an hour... oops, FAIL)

    Just guessing that it might not be a true mathematical series. Sort of like JFMAMJ... and SMTWT...
  • Off the top, I can think of no way this works mathematically. Assuming my internet is working at home, I'll send it to my nephew. He is a math savant, and will probably have a solution, if there is one, in 2 seconds.
  • for some reason this keeps calling
    3x1 -1
    3X2 +1
    3X7 +3
    but then the next number should be 77.....aka fail.
  • There are a lot of these numerical sequences where the second number does not neccessarily depend on the first, but the ones thereafter are based off of the first 2.

    If 280 is the next correct answer (as has already been mentioned), then Wetts and I have the right formula.

    All the rest of you losers can go in the FAIL category now. :-)
  • see my edit above in reference to a pyramid
  • 1,2,7,24,82...

    1

    2 (previous number multiplied by 2 plus all the previous numbers added to that total) 1 x 2 + 0 = 2

    7 = 2 x 2 + 1 + 2

    24 = 7 x 2 + 1 + 2 + 7

    82 = 24 x 2 + 1 + 2 + 7 + 24

    Next number would be 82 x 2 + 1 + 2 + 7 + 24 + 82 = 280
  • Buzzzardd wrote: »
    1,2,7,24,82...

    1

    2 (previous number multiplied by 2 plus all the previous numbers added to that total) 1 x 2 + 0 = 2

    7 = 2 x 2 + 1 + 2

    24 = 7 x 2 + 1 + 2 + 7

    82 = 24 x 2 + 1 + 2 + 7 + 24

    Next number would be 82 x 2 + 1 + 2 + 7 + 24 + 82 = 280



    This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department. :)
  • This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department. :)

    Sorry, only read the last couple of posts.
  • How about... a(n) = 4a(n-1) - 2a(n-2) (n >= 3)
  • i still think we need a math section on this forum and i can't believe we don't have one.
  • DataMn wrote: »
    There are a lot of these numerical sequences where the second number does not neccessarily depend on the first, but the ones thereafter are based off of the first 2.

    If 280 is the next correct answer (as has already been mentioned), then Wetts and I have the right formula.

    All the rest of you losers can go in the FAIL category now. :-)

    i think the person who created the rule that the 2nd number does not necessarily depend on the first FAILS.
  • DennisG wrote: »
    Yes, 280 was the apparent next number...

    It was one of those guess the next numbers game...the 1, 2, part is what also confused me as well... The string was made up by a friend, and when I told them it wasn't possible with the 1, 2, they used a real world scenario..building a pyramid starting with one brick.... then two bricks...then 7?? bricks.. The logic is failing me..which is why I am asking..

    I see 1, 3, 6 ???

    edit...ok...so...all the bottom row values are 1, second row values, 2..etc..and as we keep adding bricks to each row..the value of each row increases by 1, and 2, and 3...etc..to build this pyramid..

    mathematically is seems to work after the 7...but fuck..without the pyramid reference how would one figure that out? Smoke pot?

    tl;dr

    Pyramid reference does not work,(given that the preceding levels have a half stone reveal on two opposite sides) setting 1 on 2 then 2 on 4 and 4 on 6 is what makes sense and so a four level pyramid needs 13 blocks. They can't all of a sudden increase the edge and at 24-7, how the eff are you supposed to build a 17 square base for row 4.

    As an aside, every pyramid builder worth their salt knows that the stone on each level changes sizes progressively getting smaller as you build up, (save the odd ornamental top) so each row would have to be assigned a letter also, as they are not the same 'blocks'.


    I didn't read Al's answer, but he's right.
  • darbday wrote: »
    i think the person who created the rule that the 2nd number does not necessarily depend on the first FAILS.

    fibonacci.jpg

    Fibonacci number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (that's the most famous example)
  • Kristy_Sea wrote: »
    tl;dr

    Pyramid reference does not work,.

    yes, actually it does to understand how she built her "formula". First block (and subsequent blocks in the row) are assigned a value of one. Second row blocks (one less than the first row) are assigned a value of two..add one to each row (now 3 first row and one 2nd row) and you get a value of 7 for the 3rd row blocks..etc..
  • *sigh, no Dennis it does not. You have size-varying reveals.
  • Do what you have to Kristy...somehow I knew you just couldn't resist arguing something I said.

    I have it on paper in front of me. The pyramid reference works for ME...it worked for others...sorry it doesn't for you.
  • I'm not "arguing" with you, i'm simply stating that it does not work. You have varying sized reveals, a 'pyramid' is not a true relation to the numbers you are dealing with in the OP.

    Even allowing for an alternating 1/2 block and 0 block edge, those numbers do not build a pyramid.

    Also: get the fuck over yourself. Were I seeking out an argument with you I could've done it before and better than simply pointing out that your dumb friend's logic is flawed or that he/she was making a bad comparison.

    I read your posts because you were the OP, up until now I only related you with the vanilla ice Venn diagram and great facebook statuses you don't even come close to ranking on my 'rivalries' and 'to troll' lists.
  • Kristy_Sea wrote: »
    I'm not "arguing" with you, i'm simply stating that it does not work. You have varying sized reveals, a 'pyramid' is not a true relation to the numbers you are dealing with in the OP.

    Even allowing for an alternating 1/2 block and 0 block edge, those numbers do not build a pyramid.

    Also: get the fuck over yourself. Were I seeking out an argument with you I could've done it before and better than simply pointing out that your dumb friend's logic is flawed or that he/she was making a bad comparison.

    I read your posts because you were the OP, up until now I only related you with the vanilla ice Venn diagram and great facebook statuses you don't even come close to ranking on my 'rivalries' and 'to troll' lists.

    i agree...how do you arrange 7 in a shape with blocks.
  • darbday wrote: »
    i agree...how do you arrange 7 in a shape with blocks.

    Actually presuming the blocks were equal size, I think 7 could work with the alternating 1/2 and 0 block reveal.

    Level 1: 1
    Level 2: 2
    Level 3: 4
    Blocks: 7

    But that isn't what they're saying and blocks in pyramids aren't the same size.

    Dennis' friend giving him that learning aid is like saying: "Blue is green because neither are double ended dildos"
  • 7 is not the number of blocks. It is the value of the 3rd row of blocks...and all block on that row in the future. 24 is the value of the 4th (which has 14 blocks) row of blocks...each row upwards has one less block than the one below it...hence the pyramid "reference".
Sign In or Register to comment.