Same blocks- different numbers

[Zealot]

That's why I only edit if mine is the last post in the thread... I keep one window open and refreshed as I type my reply in another.

[e] PAGE 3! [/e]

[This message has been edited by Zealot (edited 04-02-2002 08:21 PM).]

[Bicho the Inhaler]

37 = 1 + 9 + (Ö9) * 6 edit: wrong, actually

[This message has been edited by Bicho the Inhaler (edited 04-02-2002 10:41 PM).]

[cubestudent]

Crysty:

I certainly don't know how to do 1980. I have no doubt that someone here will figure it out, though.

[CrystyB]

38 = -1 + (Ö9) + (Ö9)! * 6
39 = 1 * (Ö9) + (Ö9)! * 6
40 = 1 + (Ö9) + (Ö9)! * 6

Zealot, you could just refresh the iframe beneath the text box. That's a right-click + R, so that you know i use the keyboard myself. But to an extent. I don't always use tabs and spaces to push buttons, though i mostly do.

The problem w/ EDIT is that after you submit, it takes you to the first page, so you don't know IF there are any new posts... But you can post reply from page 1 and check out last page as i stated above.



[This message has been edited by CrystyB (edited 04-02-2002 08:32 PM).]

[Zealot]

My password field always goes blank when I do that, and I like just using the keyboard. Alt + Tab, F5, no new replies, Alt + Tab back to my reply

Thanks, I'll try that.


I can get 518 and 523, but no 528 yet...


[This message has been edited by Zealot (edited 04-02-2002 08:36 PM).]

[Zealot]

41 = -1 + (Ö9)! * (Ö9)! + 6
42 = (1 - Ö9 + 9) * 6
43 = 1 + (Ö9)! * (Ö9)! + 6

Yay! I got 42!

[This message has been edited by Zealot (edited 04-02-2002 08:49 PM).]

[CrystyB]

Zealot, why bother looking for other expressions for x when you have -1+E(x) and 1+E(x)? Use 1*E(x)!

[This message has been edited by CrystyB (edited 04-02-2002 08:55 PM).]

[Zealot]

I know... but I found 2 ways to do 42 before finding that way that would work for all three. I put the one I had come up with first.

[Bicho the Inhaler]

Besides, it's more fun not to keep using the same thing, y'know?

[cubestudent]

i like:
42 = (1 + Ö9 + Ö9) * 6
better



[This message has been edited by cubestudent (edited 04-02-2002 09:03 PM).]

[Zealot]

44 = -1 + 9 + (Ö9)! * 6
45 = 1 * 9 + (Ö9)! * 6
46 = 1 + 9 + (Ö9)! * 6

and I did have that one for my other solution to 42

[cubestudent]

i think Bicho messed up on his 37:

[Chuck]

Simpler for 37:

37 = 19 + (Ö9) × 6

[Zealot]

47 = -1 + (Ö9)! * 9 - 6
48 = 1 * (Ö9)! * 9 - 6
49 = 1 + (Ö9)! * 9 - 6

[Zealot]

50 = -1 - Ö9 + 9 * 6
51 = -1 * Ö9 + 9 * 6
52 = 1 - Ö9 + 9 * 6



[This message has been edited by Zealot (edited 04-02-2002 09:30 PM).]

[Zealot]

53 = -1^9 + 9 * 6
54 = 1^9 * 9 * 6
55 = 1^9 + 9 * 6

[cubestudent]

i'm assuming you meant: -Ö9 in 52

[Zealot]

[Zealot]

56 = -1 + Ö9 + 9 * 6
57 = 1 * Ö9 + 9 * 6
58 = 1 + Ö9 + 9 * 6
59 = -1 + (Ö9)! * 9 + 6
60 = 1 * (Ö9)! * 9 + 6
61 = 1 + (Ö9)! * 9 + 6

[Zealot]

62 = -1 + 9 + 9 * 6
63 = 1 * 9 + 9 * 6
64 = 1 + 9 + 9 * 6



[This message has been edited by Zealot (edited 04-03-2002 09:06 PM).]

[Zealot]

41 - 64 is quite enough, I'll let someone else have a try from here.

[Jingle47]

Well Making 1980 is very hard. Who's crazy idea was this anyway?
Are log and LN considered mathmatical operations in this context?

By the way I see you all have found numbers 1-100.
How about if I told you you can do it without using any of these blocks.

(
)
X
log
%


That's right you can form all 100 using only 7 blocks.

[Bicho the Inhaler]

edit: What was I thinking??? post deleted.



[This message has been edited by Bicho the Inhaler (edited 04-03-2002 10:18 AM).]

[Zealot]

I just realized after seeing Bicho's post that my last bunch were also in the form of 1969 rather than 1996. I'm pretty sure cubestudent wasn't doing extra credit problems two decades before he was born .

[Bicho the Inhaler]

I can't believe I did that; silly typo. I'll fix it.

[Bicho the Inhaler]

66 = 1 * 99 * .6r

If you weren't here for the 4444 thread, ".6r" means 0.66666... = 2/3. Most people, I think, write it as 0.6 with a bar over the six (or possibly a dot):

code:

---

 _     .


.4 or .4

---

But we ended up just notating it with "r" because it's less cumbersome.

[CrystyB]

Damn! I knew i should make some version opf my backtracking program to take into account adjacent digits... I'll do by hand all of them that aren't done above.

1980 was my idea b/c i wanted my b-day. 5, 28 and 80 would have been too easy. Sorry for the added (multiplied!) complexity...

As i said, if N is -1 +/-something, N+1 and N+2 can be easily produced:
65 = -1 +9+9 + 6!!
66 = 1*9+9 + 6!!
67 = 1 +9+9 + 6!!

HEY! 6-factorial is 720. 6-double-fact is 48. What were you thinking of?

(i myself have used paranthesis notation for repeating: 1/3=0.(3), FWIW)

[This message has been edited by CrystyB (edited 04-03-2002 10:26 AM).]

[Bicho the Inhaler]

Looks like I had 6! as 72 for some inscrutable reason

[CrystyB]

I cannot for the life of me figure out 82, 90, 91, 95, 99 or 100. I'm positive i exhausted all possibilities.

code:

---

0=1+2-3


1=1


2=2


3=3


4=3+1


5=5


6=5+1


7=7


8=7+1


9=7+2


10=7+3


11=13-2


12=12


13=13


14=17-3


15=17-2


16=21-5


17=17


18=15+3


19=17+2


20=17+3


21=21


22=27-5


23=23


24=23+1


25=25


26=25+1


27=27


28=27+1


29=31-2


30=27+3


31=31


32=32


33=32+1


34=35-1


35=35


36=35+1


37=37


38=37+1


39=37+2


40=37+5-2


41=37+5-1


42=37+5


43=75-32


44=51-7


45=52-7


46=53-7


47=12+35


48=51-3


49=51-2


50=51+2-3


51=51


52=52


53=53


54=53+1


55=53+2


56=25+31


57=57


58=57+1


59=57+2


60=57+3


61=25+37-1


62=25+37


63=75-12


64=75-13+2


65=12+53


66=75-12+3


67=72-5


68=73-5


69=71-2


70=57+13


71=71


72=72


73=73


74=73+1


75=75


76=75+1


77=75+2


78=75+3


79=57+23-1


80=57+23=72+13-5


81=153-72


.


83=51+32


84=72+15-3


85=72+13


86=73+15-2


87=75+12


88=75+13


89=57+32


.


.


92=127-35


93=71+25-3


94=71+23


.


96=71+25


97=73+25-1


98=73+25


.


.

---

Hmm, i overlooked some expressions though: 82=125-43, 90=41+52-3, 91=125-34 (exhaustive programs work ). But still, that leaves 95, 99 and 100.

[mikegoo]

Are we trying to get the original problem using only + and - now or are people still working on the 1996 thing?

[Unfortunate Soul]

Because I am very new at this, and I am asking a totally off-topic question that I would like answered.
What is a chestnut?

---------------------------
Rated NWS(not worthy of a signature)

[HyToFry]

A chestnut is a puzzle that has been around for a very long time.

What is greater than god, more evil than the devil, the poor have it, the rich want it, and if you eat it, you will die. That's a chestnut. (the answer is: nothing)

[Jingle47]

99=5^3-27+1


------------------
I AM THE SMARTEST GUY ON THE BLOCK!
-Psst! "He lives in a cul-de-sac"

[Chuck]

A computer program should be able to easily check every possible arrangement of 7 or fewer blocks, including turning them. Maybe I'll do that some time. Does turning mean that the + and × signs can either add or multiply?

[CrystyB]

You mean

code:

---

 3


5  -27+1

---

??? Then that's not fair!

[Zealot]

For the 1996 problem, I can get 66 without having to use either repeating decimals or a double factorial, but I haven't found another way to 65 or 67 yet.

66 = (-1 + 9) * 9 - 6

[CrystyB]

what's wrong with my double factorial?

[Jingle47]

yes you could use the+as an x
so you could use a + and -
or a x and -

[CrystyB]

Chuck, i already did that, since now with 2 operations we've got a tree of height 2-. But the operands are arbitrarily long numbers, and that screwed me.

TY both for the tip on + and x. 95=2x51-7, 99=2x51-3. Now for 100.

[This message has been edited by CrystyB (edited 04-04-2002 08:42 PM).]

[Jingle47]

Crysty-
one answer for 100 is
7^2+1 -3^5
if you don't like the exponents without parentheses there is still another way