Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dondon151]

I don't quite get that logic... you could also say that using 4*4 is cheating, because really that's just doing 4+4+4+4. Or that 4! is cheating, because that's just 4*3*2*1.

Why would 4*4 be cheating? 4+4+4+4 still uses only 4s. I didn't specify my opinion on use of the factorial but I'd rather it not be used in this game, either.

[Axxle]

I don't quite get that logic... you could also say that using 4*4 is cheating, because really that's just doing 4+4+4+4. Or that 4! is cheating, because that's just 4*3*2*1.

Why would 4*4 be cheating? 4+4+4+4 still uses only 4s. I didn't specify my opinion on use of the factorial but I'd rather it not be used in this game, either.

You are required to use exactly four 4s and no other numbers.

[GendoIkari]

I don't quite get that logic... you could also say that using 4*4 is cheating, because really that's just doing 4+4+4+4. Or that 4! is cheating, because that's just 4*3*2*1.

Why would 4*4 be cheating? 4+4+4+4 still uses only 4s. I didn't specify my opinion on use of the factorial but I'd rather it not be used in this game, either.

Well not so much that 4*4 itself is cheating, but rather that it takes all four of your 4s, as opposed to only two of them. And one could definitely have a fun puzzle with the restrictions that you can ONLY use +, -, *, and /, but I'm positive that all solutions from 1-100 would not be possible at that point.

[dondon151]

Well not so much that 4*4 itself is cheating, but rather that it takes all four of your 4s, as opposed to only two of them. And one could definitely have a fun puzzle with the restrictions that you can ONLY use +, -, *, and /, but I'm positive that all solutions from 1-100 would not be possible at that point.

Because using an unbounded quantity of square roots and factorials doesn't trivialize this challenge at all, right?

Also, what does ⌊√√4⌋ mean?

[ghostofmars]

I'm not sure if cosh and sinh have their own buttons though... And the inverses like asinh are often written with a - 1.

I'm using this calculator:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/KCalc_all_buttons.png
It has a 'hyp' and an 'inv' button, that allows to calculate hyperbolic functions and their inverse ones. Furthermore, if you actually press the 'inv' button, the function is named 'asin' and not 'sin^-1'.

[Davio]

Well not so much that 4*4 itself is cheating, but rather that it takes all four of your 4s, as opposed to only two of them. And one could definitely have a fun puzzle with the restrictions that you can ONLY use +, -, *, and /, but I'm positive that all solutions from 1-100 would not be possible at that point.

Because using an unbounded quantity of square roots and factorials doesn't trivialize this challenge at all, right?

Also, what does ⌊√√4⌋ mean?

⌊X⌋ means floor X, round down to the nearest integer. Subsequently you have ceil which rounds up.
So ⌊√√4⌋ = ⌊1.41⌋ = 1

[Watno]

Well not so much that 4*4 itself is cheating, but rather that it takes all four of your 4s, as opposed to only two of them. And one could definitely have a fun puzzle with the restrictions that you can ONLY use +, -, *, and /, but I'm positive that all solutions from 1-100 would not be possible at that point.

Because using an unbounded quantity of square roots and factorials doesn't trivialize this challenge at all, right?

No, it doesn't. But it makes it possible.

[GendoIkari]

Well not so much that 4*4 itself is cheating, but rather that it takes all four of your 4s, as opposed to only two of them. And one could definitely have a fun puzzle with the restrictions that you can ONLY use +, -, *, and /, but I'm positive that all solutions from 1-100 would not be possible at that point.

Because using an unbounded quantity of square roots and factorials doesn't trivialize this challenge at all, right?

Also, what does ⌊√√4⌋ mean?

I mean, using more than one square root symbol is ONLY helpful if you also use ceiling or floor functions, which I explained in my post that used them as being "easy mode". Not that I would call even that "trivial" at all... it took quite a bit of calculation and trial and error to come up with the solution I did.

But the original intent of the problem wasn't to post that type of solution, or any of the other presented solutions that use arcsign, gamma, !!, log, or any other such things where people have managed to prove that there is actually a possible solution for all integers. The intent was to use basic math symbols, including square root and factorial, to come up with 100 different equations. Using a single square root to get 2 with only one 4 doesn't trivialize the problem at all; it's a necessary part of the challenge.

[DStu]

But the original intent of the problem wasn't to post that type of solution, or any of the other presented solutions that use arcsign, gamma, !!, log, or any other such things where people have managed to prove that there is actually a possible solution for all integers. The intent was to use basic math symbols, including square root and factorial, to come up with 100 different equations.

But, as everybody could have known beforehand, we all like to edge-case the puzzle more than we like to solve it...

[Watno]

Why solve a problem when you can break it?

[GendoIkari]

But the original intent of the problem wasn't to post that type of solution, or any of the other presented solutions that use arcsign, gamma, !!, log, or any other such things where people have managed to prove that there is actually a possible solution for all integers. The intent was to use basic math symbols, including square root and factorial, to come up with 100 different equations.

But, as everybody could have known beforehand, we all like to edge-case the puzzle more than we like to solve it...

Edge case... sure 4+4+4+4 USUALLY equals 16, but when does it not?

[Watno]

easy, if you're using base 7

[Kirian]

But the original intent of the problem wasn't to post that type of solution, or any of the other presented solutions that use arcsign, gamma, !!, log, or any other such things where people have managed to prove that there is actually a possible solution for all integers. The intent was to use basic math symbols, including square root and factorial, to come up with 100 different equations.

But, as everybody could have known beforehand, we all like to edge-case the puzzle more than we like to solve it...

Edge case... sure 4+4+4+4 USUALLY equals 16, but when does it not?

When you're using a balance that only measures to a precision of 1 gram, four separate 4.2 gram masses (each of which will appear as 4 g) have a total mass of 16.8 g (which will appear as 17 g).

4+4+4+4=17.

[Davio]

But the original intent of the problem wasn't to post that type of solution, or any of the other presented solutions that use arcsign, gamma, !!, log, or any other such things where people have managed to prove that there is actually a possible solution for all integers. The intent was to use basic math symbols, including square root and factorial, to come up with 100 different equations.

But, as everybody could have known beforehand, we all like to edge-case the puzzle more than we like to solve it...

Edge case... sure 4+4+4+4 USUALLY equals 16, but when does it not?

When PHP decides to turn everything into a string? 4+4+4+4 = 4444

[DStu]

But the original intent of the problem wasn't to post that type of solution, or any of the other presented solutions that use arcsign, gamma, !!, log, or any other such things where people have managed to prove that there is actually a possible solution for all integers. The intent was to use basic math symbols, including square root and factorial, to come up with 100 different equations.

But, as everybody could have known beforehand, we all like to edge-case the puzzle more than we like to solve it...

Edge case... sure 4+4+4+4 USUALLY equals 16, but when does it not?

When PHP decides to turn everything into a string? 4+4+4+4 = 4444

=? or ==? or ===?

[theory]

Or if you're using Javascript:

Code: [Select]

    typeof NaN === 'number' // true
    Infinity === 1/0        // true
    0.1 + 0.2 === 0.3       // false

bonus

Code: [Select]

    parseInt('06'); // 6
    parseInt('08'); // 0

[DStu]

Or if you use(d) glibc:

Code: [Select]

TWO=-2


[Tables]

I have a shirt which reads:

2 + 2 = 5
For extremely large values of 2

[enfynet]

I've always preferred stuff like 2+2=2.8 at a right angle