A Difficult Math

[Kelemvor]

No I just mean I can find ways of getting down the first column from one row to the next and same for the third but the pattern doesn't hold going form the 4th to the 5th. Unless the individual rows aren't related in any way and it really is just comparing the numbers in each row and each row in independant from the other. Then that might not matter.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
No I just mean I can find ways of getting down the first column from one row to the next and same for the third but the pattern doesn't hold going form the 4th to the 5th. Unless the individual rows aren't related in any way and it really is just comparing the numbers in each row and each row in independant from the other. Then that might not matter.

I think he means the rows are independant from the other rows.

I'm stumped too. I can find all kinds of paterns that work if that 38 was different.

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
No I just mean I can find ways of getting down the first column from one row to the next and same for the third but the pattern doesn't hold going form the 4th to the 5th. Unless the individual rows aren't related in any way and it really is just comparing the numbers in each row and each row in independant from the other. Then that might not matter.

Originally posted by: WaiWai
Ther relationship is among the first/second/third numbers.
The relationship is the same for each numeral series.
But each numeral series does not affect each other.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: TheStu
ok ive got it

subtract the first number from the second, and multiply that number by 1.5...

so;

12 (21) 26 (26 - 12 = 14... 14 * 1.5 = 21)

16 (30) 36 (36 - 16 = 20... 20 *1.5 = 30)

20 (38) 48

24 (54) 60

28 ( ? ) 84 (84 - 28 = 56... 56 * 1.5 = 84)

the last answer is 84

but this fails because on the 3rd one
48-20 = 28 *1.5 = 42 /= 38

You're like the 4th person to point that out....do you even read other ppl's posts?

 

[WaiWai]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
No I just mean I can find ways of getting down the first column from one row to the next and same for the third but the pattern doesn't hold going form the 4th to the 5th. Unless the individual rows aren't related in any way and it really is just comparing the numbers in each row and each row in independant from the other. Then that might not matter.

I think it must be something beyond simple math (+, -, *, /)
Maybe something to do with square root?!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: WaiWai

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
No I just mean I can find ways of getting down the first column from one row to the next and same for the third but the pattern doesn't hold going form the 4th to the 5th. Unless the individual rows aren't related in any way and it really is just comparing the numbers in each row and each row in independant from the other. Then that might not matter.

I think it must be something beyond simple math (+, -, *, /)
Maybe something to do with square root?!

indeed the pattern is not linear...

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: DaShen
dang it!!!! this is going to bother me for the rest of the day.

It's going to bother me for the next 4 seconds until I click the X.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: TheStu
ok ive got it

subtract the first number from the second, and multiply that number by 1.5...

so;

12 (21) 26 (26 - 12 = 14... 14 * 1.5 = 21)

16 (30) 36 (36 - 16 = 20... 20 *1.5 = 30)

20 (38) 48

24 (54) 60

28 ( ? ) 84 (84 - 28 = 56... 56 * 1.5 = 84)

the last answer is 84

but this fails because on the 3rd one
48-20 = 28 *1.5 = 42 /= 38

You're like the 4th person to point that out....do you even read other ppl's posts?

Yes, I do. But I sometimes post before I read all of them.

 

[Jeraden]

anyone figure out the answer yet?

 

[axnff]

Anyone with an answer to this? It has to be rather complex.

First of all, it cannot be a simple additive/multiplicate combination. If so, there would be a direct corollary between the first and second, the second and third, and the first and third values, but this is not so:

First values in series (12, 16, 20, 24, 28): +4 spacing evenly. Even though each series is not related to the others, if we have a direct/simple combination (using addition or multiplication), we should see a proportional increase in the second and third series. Even if the spacing is not even, it (the spacing) should either increase or decrease regularly.

This is not the case:
second series (21,30,38,54): (+9,+8,+16) - Notice that we have a negative rate of change from the values 1->2(+9) and 2->3(+8), followed by an increase in change from 2->3(+8) to 3->4(+16).

So, if formulaic, it must be a high-order polynomial, modular, sinusoidal, or some other function that allows for this behavior.

If procedural, it could be something to do with prime factors, the number of letter "e"s when the numbers are spelled in German, who knows.

The best I've got is defining the third value in terms of the first (x) is: f(x) = 2x+2^(x/4-2), but it only works for the first three, 4th and 5th need to be 64 and 88 respectively for it to work, and it still does nothing for the missing second-place value.

My guess is that it is some obscure procedural method....

 

[Zaitsevs]

5$??

 

[UncleWai]

Hihi WaiWai, I am UncleWai.

 

[WaiWai]

Originally posted by: UncleWai
Hihi WaiWai, I am UncleWai.

Hi, UncleWai.
But you look like female - are you transexual?
(joking)

 

[WaiWai]

Originally posted by: axnff
Anyone with an answer to this? It has to be rather complex.

First of all, it cannot be a simple additive/multiplicate combination. If so, there would be a direct corollary between the first and second, the second and third, and the first and third values, but this is not so:

First values in series (12, 16, 20, 24, 28): +4 spacing evenly. Even though each series is not related to the others, if we have a direct/simple combination (using addition or multiplication), we should see a proportional increase in the second and third series. Even if the spacing is not even, it (the spacing) should either increase or decrease regularly.

This is not the case:
second series (21,30,38,54): (+9,+8,+16) - Notice that we have a negative rate of change from the values 1->2(+9) and 2->3(+8), followed by an increase in change from 2->3(+8) to 3->4(+16).

So, if formulaic, it must be a high-order polynomial, modular, sinusoidal, or some other function that allows for this behavior.

If procedural, it could be something to do with prime factors, the number of letter "e"s when the numbers are spelled in German, who knows.

The best I've got is defining the third value in terms of the first (x) is: f(x) = 2x+2^(x/4-2), but it only works for the first three, 4th and 5th need to be 64 and 88 respectively for it to work, and it still does nothing for the missing second-place value.

My guess is that it is some obscure procedural method....

Your analysis is excellent!
You pinpointed all the important points!

Now I completely surrender. I couldn't figure out a pattern which suits all of them. There must be always one which is insisted in following the pattern!

I'm just waiting for an answer from the creator.
Either it is very complex or irrational, or the creator makes a silly mistake in his question!
But he haven't respond for a few days so far, did he escape due to the fact that he realised he made a silly mistake and have no bravery to admit it.

 

[letdown427]

My bet is also on obscure procedural problem.

Something ridiculous like, well, the second difference between the number of dashes it takes to draw the number on a digital clock is constant.

Or, the number of degrees of curvature for each number increases in a fixed way.

Either way, bump for solution, else, meh.

 

[Injury]

Perhaps the parenthesis are there to confuse people, and the value inside of them is not really an answer, but rather just another number in the pattern.

 

[her209]

12x+21y=26
16x+30y=36
20x+38y=48
24x+54y=60
28x+84y=84

x=1
y=2/3

 

[WaiWai]

Originally posted by: her209
12x+21y=26
16x+30y=36
20x+38y=48
24x+54y=60
28x+84y=84

x=1
y=2/3

Unfortunately the third one should be 45.333 which falsify the whole pattern, as discussed previously.

 

[shamrock1313]

79.

or 59.

 

[WaiWai]

Originally posted by: letdown427
My bet is also on obscure procedural problem.

Something ridiculous like, well, the second difference between the number of dashes it takes to draw the number on a digital clock is constant.

If it is based on obscure procedural problem, it's like a wolf in sheep's clothing - NOT a true Math question. How cunning you are!

Or, the number of degrees of curvature for each number increases in a fixed way.

If it's something like:
A=A*1+1
B=A*2+2
C=A*3+3

I think that's ok. But I have yet to see such a pattern existing in this question.
Probably the pattern is too complex or obscure.

 

[WaiWai]

Originally posted by: letdown427
My bet is also on obscure procedural problem.

Something ridiculous like, well, the second difference between the number of dashes it takes to draw the number on a digital clock is constant.

Or, the number of degrees of curvature for each number increases in a fixed way.

Either way, bump for solution, else, meh.

The creator confirmed there's no mistake in his question.
I replied him for either a straightforward answer or some good hints!

 

[JDrake]

Does it have to do with the Bible?
12:21-26

 

[Savarak]

Originally posted by: WaiWai
A Difficult Math

12 (21) 26

16 (30) 36

20 (38) 48

24 (54) 60

28 ( ? ) 84

Each numeral series stands on its own.
Ther relationship is among the first/second/third numbers.
The relationship is the same for each numeral series.
But each numeral series does not affect each other.

I figured it out... the answer is "28 ( [any number greater than 37 and less than 79] ) 84"

it fits...
1. series still stands as its own..
2. relationship is that the middle number is at least 9 greater than left number, and at most 5 less than right number
3. relationship as mentioned in 2. is the same for each
4. each series stands does not affect the others

Think outside the box here!

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: Savarak

Originally posted by: WaiWai
A Difficult Math

12 (21) 26

16 (30) 36

20 (38) 48

24 (54) 60

28 ( ? ) 84

Each numeral series stands on its own.
Ther relationship is among the first/second/third numbers.
The relationship is the same for each numeral series.
But each numeral series does not affect each other.

I figured it out... the answer is "28 ( [any number greater than 37 and less than 79] ) 84"

it fits...
1. series still stands as its own..
2. relationship is that the middle number is at least 9 greater than left number, and at most 5 less than right number
3. relationship as mentioned in 2. is the same for each
4. each series stands does not affect the others

Think outside the box here!

QFT .

 

[Injury]

What if OP got the numbers wrong on the fourth one.