Make 0 0 0 0 = 8
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
54
down vote
favorite
Can you find a way to make:
$0 0 0 0 = 8$
by adding any operations or symbols? You can use only these symbols:
$+, -, *, !, /, hat, , ()$.
It is limited to this list, and concatenation is also allowed. You cannot add other numbers to the equation.
mathematics number-theory
add a comment |Â
up vote
54
down vote
favorite
Can you find a way to make:
$0 0 0 0 = 8$
by adding any operations or symbols? You can use only these symbols:
$+, -, *, !, /, hat, , ()$.
It is limited to this list, and concatenation is also allowed. You cannot add other numbers to the equation.
mathematics number-theory
37
Just put a slash over the equal sign!
â Yout Ried
Sep 7 at 0:40
11
@YoutRied: standard loophole: neither funny nor creative. It's usually the first answer on any math puzzle.
â Thomas Weller
Sep 7 at 18:40
1
Are we allowed to move anything, or is it insert only?
â ctrl-alt-delor
Sep 7 at 19:33
1
Are you allowed to concatenate operators? (e.g!!
,**
,--
, and++
)
â Ole Tange
Sep 9 at 1:09
@OleTange The accepted answer does concatenate operators. Also, the question allows it.
â haykam
Sep 9 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
up vote
54
down vote
favorite
up vote
54
down vote
favorite
Can you find a way to make:
$0 0 0 0 = 8$
by adding any operations or symbols? You can use only these symbols:
$+, -, *, !, /, hat, , ()$.
It is limited to this list, and concatenation is also allowed. You cannot add other numbers to the equation.
mathematics number-theory
Can you find a way to make:
$0 0 0 0 = 8$
by adding any operations or symbols? You can use only these symbols:
$+, -, *, !, /, hat, , ()$.
It is limited to this list, and concatenation is also allowed. You cannot add other numbers to the equation.
mathematics number-theory
mathematics number-theory
asked Sep 7 at 0:35
kraby15
2,3393730
2,3393730
37
Just put a slash over the equal sign!
â Yout Ried
Sep 7 at 0:40
11
@YoutRied: standard loophole: neither funny nor creative. It's usually the first answer on any math puzzle.
â Thomas Weller
Sep 7 at 18:40
1
Are we allowed to move anything, or is it insert only?
â ctrl-alt-delor
Sep 7 at 19:33
1
Are you allowed to concatenate operators? (e.g!!
,**
,--
, and++
)
â Ole Tange
Sep 9 at 1:09
@OleTange The accepted answer does concatenate operators. Also, the question allows it.
â haykam
Sep 9 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
37
Just put a slash over the equal sign!
â Yout Ried
Sep 7 at 0:40
11
@YoutRied: standard loophole: neither funny nor creative. It's usually the first answer on any math puzzle.
â Thomas Weller
Sep 7 at 18:40
1
Are we allowed to move anything, or is it insert only?
â ctrl-alt-delor
Sep 7 at 19:33
1
Are you allowed to concatenate operators? (e.g!!
,**
,--
, and++
)
â Ole Tange
Sep 9 at 1:09
@OleTange The accepted answer does concatenate operators. Also, the question allows it.
â haykam
Sep 9 at 13:59
37
37
Just put a slash over the equal sign!
â Yout Ried
Sep 7 at 0:40
Just put a slash over the equal sign!
â Yout Ried
Sep 7 at 0:40
11
11
@YoutRied: standard loophole: neither funny nor creative. It's usually the first answer on any math puzzle.
â Thomas Weller
Sep 7 at 18:40
@YoutRied: standard loophole: neither funny nor creative. It's usually the first answer on any math puzzle.
â Thomas Weller
Sep 7 at 18:40
1
1
Are we allowed to move anything, or is it insert only?
â ctrl-alt-delor
Sep 7 at 19:33
Are we allowed to move anything, or is it insert only?
â ctrl-alt-delor
Sep 7 at 19:33
1
1
Are you allowed to concatenate operators? (e.g
!!
, **
, --
, and ++
)â Ole Tange
Sep 9 at 1:09
Are you allowed to concatenate operators? (e.g
!!
, **
, --
, and ++
)â Ole Tange
Sep 9 at 1:09
@OleTange The accepted answer does concatenate operators. Also, the question allows it.
â haykam
Sep 9 at 13:59
@OleTange The accepted answer does concatenate operators. Also, the question allows it.
â haykam
Sep 9 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
24 Answers
24
active
oldest
votes
up vote
94
down vote
accepted
I think that
$left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = 8$.
This is because
$0! = 1$ and $4!! = 8$. Note that $left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = left( 1+1+1+1 right)!! = left (4 right)!! = 8$.
This works and is valid because
The question says IâÂÂm allowed to use any of the following symbols in my answer, I am not restricted to using $!$ as an operation only.
62
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
11
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
3
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
10
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
2
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
98
down vote
A lateral thinking answer:
0! 0 0 0, because the binary equivalent of 8 is 1000 :)
7
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
1
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
69
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ~~!!=~ 8$
because
$ !!= $ is an alternative way of writing $ ne $.
4
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
3
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
55
down vote
Lateral thinking!
$$0+0+substack0\0=0+0+8=8$$
8
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
79
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
34
down vote
let me try:
$0! Vert 0 - 0!-0! =8$
$10-1-1=8$
$Vert$ is a concatenation operation
1
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
3
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
1
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
2
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,2 8 7
can be28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not(2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
3
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
27
down vote
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
Evaluation:
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
$rightarrow ((1+1)^(1+1))!!$
$rightarrow (2^2)!!$
$rightarrow 4!! = 8$
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
It's different:
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
An ASCII art $8$ using only four $0$'s and $+$'s.
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = !8
because
In C/C++, ! refers to the logical not operator, where all non-zero values become 0, and 0 becomes 1.
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
3
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (!
,&&
,||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
,&
,|
,^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.
â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
14
down vote
It's just a matter of perspective ...
0!/0 + 0!/0 = âÂÂ
My reasoning....
0/0 is undefined so we have to first change the 0's into 1's with 0!
(...and why did you write the infinity symbol sideways in your question?)
1
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
1
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
$$[+!0]+[0]-!0-!0$$
Works in JavaScript. Hit F12 and type this into the console (This equation editor uses "âÂÂ" instead of "-" so copy and paste doesn't quite work). Otherwise, it works in the same way as @malioboro and @Arnaldur's answers.
In fact, you can make any JavaScript application run just by using a combination of 6 characters, which is what inspired me to make this. I substituted + for 0 when asking JSF**k to do 10-2.
3
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
2
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
3
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
$concat(0!,0) - 0! - 0! = 8$
becomes:
$concat(1,0) - 1 - 1 = 8$
and finally:
$10 - 2 = 8$
cool puzzle!
2
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 equiv 8$
Adding the symbol $-$ over the equals sign makes it a congruence sign.
Considering the congruence relation, we must be working mod N, where N divides 8.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Just put the minus symbol over the first zero to give it the look of a figure 8 and use plus to add the zeros.
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
2
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
3
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
1
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Here is an answer that doesn't use the semi-factorial or any concatenation.
$$0 + 0 - 0! / 0 = (-8)!$$
The left side is $-1/0$ and the right side is $-infty$.
Plugging the expression into Wolfram.
4
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Question limits the symbols, not the operations. So with the symbol +
can make the operator ++
.
(++(++(++(++(++(++(++0000))))))) = 8
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
1
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
1
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
2
You need to pass an l-value to the++
and--
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.
â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
concatenate(0!, 0) - concatenate(0! + 0!) = 8.
Note that 0! = 1
(0!, 0) = 10, and (0! + 0!) = 2, so 10 - 2 = 8
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Add a - above the equals to get $0000 equiv 8$, which is true assuming we are working in the ring $mathbbZ/mathbb2Z$. (Note I'm trying to avoid writing $[0] = [8]$...)
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This could work too:
(0!+0+0)/0 = âÂÂ
Explanation
(0!+0+0)/0 = 1/0 which is infinity (8 but put horizontally)
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
$ ((0! + 0!)$)*(0! + 0!) = 2^2*2 = 8 $.
Further explanation:
The $$$ operation denotes the superfactorial defined as : $ n$ = (n!) uparrow uparrow (n!)$.
3
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
If you turn the problem around
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As per the list of allowed symbols we are clearly allowed to use "$,$" and "$.$"
This is doubly evident as otherwise how would we use the $mathbbconcatenation$ function without a comma to separate the arguments?
So the solution is:
$0! - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 0! + 0!!) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 1 + 1) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 2) = .8$
$1 - .2 = .8$
You may simplify0!!
as0!
.
â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
$00^00 = 0^0$ which is indeterminate. In some sense, an indeterminate form can be equal to any value, since in Calculus, a function that approaches "$0^0$" can approach any real value, including $8$. So in that sense, $0^0 = 8$.
If you don't like concatenating two zeroes as "$00$", then $0^0 + 0 + 0$ also works.
7
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Factorial of Zero equals to 1. And 4!!=8.
Then you can put plus and power to end up the story.
((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!
4
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Similar to @Vaelus
$0+0+0+0 leq 8$
Explanation
You can get the $leq$ by adding a $-$ inclined on top of the $=$
add a comment |Â
24 Answers
24
active
oldest
votes
24 Answers
24
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
94
down vote
accepted
I think that
$left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = 8$.
This is because
$0! = 1$ and $4!! = 8$. Note that $left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = left( 1+1+1+1 right)!! = left (4 right)!! = 8$.
This works and is valid because
The question says IâÂÂm allowed to use any of the following symbols in my answer, I am not restricted to using $!$ as an operation only.
62
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
11
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
3
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
10
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
2
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
94
down vote
accepted
I think that
$left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = 8$.
This is because
$0! = 1$ and $4!! = 8$. Note that $left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = left( 1+1+1+1 right)!! = left (4 right)!! = 8$.
This works and is valid because
The question says IâÂÂm allowed to use any of the following symbols in my answer, I am not restricted to using $!$ as an operation only.
62
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
11
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
3
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
10
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
2
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
94
down vote
accepted
up vote
94
down vote
accepted
I think that
$left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = 8$.
This is because
$0! = 1$ and $4!! = 8$. Note that $left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = left( 1+1+1+1 right)!! = left (4 right)!! = 8$.
This works and is valid because
The question says IâÂÂm allowed to use any of the following symbols in my answer, I am not restricted to using $!$ as an operation only.
I think that
$left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = 8$.
This is because
$0! = 1$ and $4!! = 8$. Note that $left( 0! + 0! + 0! + 0! right)!! = left( 1+1+1+1 right)!! = left (4 right)!! = 8$.
This works and is valid because
The question says IâÂÂm allowed to use any of the following symbols in my answer, I am not restricted to using $!$ as an operation only.
edited Sep 7 at 6:42
Laurel
681310
681310
answered Sep 7 at 0:40
El-Guest
11.4k2256
11.4k2256
62
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
11
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
3
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
10
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
2
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
 |Â
show 4 more comments
62
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
11
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
3
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
10
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
2
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
62
62
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
for those who are confused, !! is a mathematical operator that gives the product of all positive integers upto the argument which have the same parity (odd/even) as the argument, its called a semifactorial. (thus 4!! is 2*4 = 8)
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:16
11
11
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
@casualcoder most people assume $n!!$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $n$ is the same as $(n!)!$, but it's not. That brings up some confusion, so I usually write $n!_k$ to denote $n$ with $k$ factorials, but not on this site.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:49
3
3
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
@casualcoder Google disagrees with Wolfram on this.
â user1717828
Sep 7 at 14:46
10
10
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
Google disagrees with Wolfram on a lot of things. When it comes to math, chances are Wolfram is the correct one.
â AlexanderJ93
Sep 7 at 23:03
2
2
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
@user1717828, user477343âÂÂs comment above explains why GoogleâÂÂs interpretation is not correct in this context.
â El-Guest
Sep 7 at 23:09
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
98
down vote
A lateral thinking answer:
0! 0 0 0, because the binary equivalent of 8 is 1000 :)
7
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
1
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
98
down vote
A lateral thinking answer:
0! 0 0 0, because the binary equivalent of 8 is 1000 :)
7
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
1
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
98
down vote
up vote
98
down vote
A lateral thinking answer:
0! 0 0 0, because the binary equivalent of 8 is 1000 :)
A lateral thinking answer:
0! 0 0 0, because the binary equivalent of 8 is 1000 :)
edited Sep 7 at 14:01
El-Guest
11.4k2256
11.4k2256
answered Sep 7 at 13:44
let_the_coding_begin
1,01114
1,01114
7
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
1
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
add a comment |Â
7
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
1
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
7
7
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
I like this! very direct and minimal.
â Ruadhan2300
Sep 7 at 14:25
1
1
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
My favourite one! I did wonder if someone would go binary.
â oliver-clare
Sep 7 at 15:07
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
I was just checking existing answers to see if anyone else had thought of ! In the sense of negation, and binary. So "yes" :)
â Stilez
Sep 10 at 8:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
69
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ~~!!=~ 8$
because
$ !!= $ is an alternative way of writing $ ne $.
4
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
3
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
69
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ~~!!=~ 8$
because
$ !!= $ is an alternative way of writing $ ne $.
4
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
3
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
69
down vote
up vote
69
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ~~!!=~ 8$
because
$ !!= $ is an alternative way of writing $ ne $.
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ~~!!=~ 8$
because
$ !!= $ is an alternative way of writing $ ne $.
answered Sep 7 at 8:43
Teemu Piippo
67714
67714
4
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
3
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
add a comment |Â
4
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
3
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
4
4
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
This is the answer!
â Theodore Weld
Sep 8 at 2:20
3
3
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
@TheodoreWeld nope, this question is tagged mathematics, and you have to use a slash similar to Yout Ried instead of this
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
55
down vote
Lateral thinking!
$$0+0+substack0\0=0+0+8=8$$
8
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
79
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
55
down vote
Lateral thinking!
$$0+0+substack0\0=0+0+8=8$$
8
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
79
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
55
down vote
up vote
55
down vote
Lateral thinking!
$$0+0+substack0\0=0+0+8=8$$
Lateral thinking!
$$0+0+substack0\0=0+0+8=8$$
answered Sep 7 at 6:25
TheSimpliFire
1,771324
1,771324
8
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
79
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
add a comment |Â
8
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
79
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
8
8
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
First I thought "how does picking 0 out of 0 give you 8 combinations", then I got it.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:01
79
79
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
Looks more like vertical thinking to me.
â Evargalo
Sep 7 at 12:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
34
down vote
let me try:
$0! Vert 0 - 0!-0! =8$
$10-1-1=8$
$Vert$ is a concatenation operation
1
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
3
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
1
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
2
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,2 8 7
can be28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not(2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
3
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
34
down vote
let me try:
$0! Vert 0 - 0!-0! =8$
$10-1-1=8$
$Vert$ is a concatenation operation
1
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
3
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
1
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
2
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,2 8 7
can be28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not(2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
3
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
34
down vote
up vote
34
down vote
let me try:
$0! Vert 0 - 0!-0! =8$
$10-1-1=8$
$Vert$ is a concatenation operation
let me try:
$0! Vert 0 - 0!-0! =8$
$10-1-1=8$
$Vert$ is a concatenation operation
edited Sep 8 at 15:29
answered Sep 7 at 0:43
malioboro
2,295827
2,295827
1
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
3
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
1
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
2
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,2 8 7
can be28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not(2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
3
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
3
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
1
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
2
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,2 8 7
can be28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not(2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
3
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
1
1
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
good solution but in this case you cant use '[' or ']'
â casualcoder
Sep 7 at 7:13
3
3
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
@casualcoder It was explicitly allowed. If this wasn't meant to be a valid solution, why even allow it, as 00 = 0+0 = 0?
â Zizy Archer
Sep 7 at 7:51
1
1
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
I've never used $[ldots ]$ as an operator before, let alone for what you use it as in this answer. I usually use it as a set notation; i.e., $[n]=1,2,ldots n$ :P
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:53
2
2
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,
2 8 7
can be 28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not (2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
I think "concatenation allowed" in these puzzles usually means that, for example,
2 8 7
can be 28 ÷ 7 = 4
, but not (2+8)7 = 107
â Chronocidal
Sep 7 at 14:22
3
3
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
@Chronocidal What you are saying is probably true about most of these puzzles. But in this particular puzzle where all the digits are 0, that interpretation does not make a lot of sense. To me this answer feels more legitimate than the accepted answer. That's because concatenation is explicitly allowed, but the !! is not explicitly allowed (though it may be implied).
â kasperd
Sep 8 at 12:20
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
27
down vote
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
Evaluation:
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
$rightarrow ((1+1)^(1+1))!!$
$rightarrow (2^2)!!$
$rightarrow 4!! = 8$
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
Evaluation:
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
$rightarrow ((1+1)^(1+1))!!$
$rightarrow (2^2)!!$
$rightarrow 4!! = 8$
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
up vote
27
down vote
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
Evaluation:
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
$rightarrow ((1+1)^(1+1))!!$
$rightarrow (2^2)!!$
$rightarrow 4!! = 8$
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
Evaluation:
$((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!$
$rightarrow ((1+1)^(1+1))!!$
$rightarrow (2^2)!!$
$rightarrow 4!! = 8$
answered Sep 7 at 14:04
u_ndefined
2,140332
2,140332
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
It's different:
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
An ASCII art $8$ using only four $0$'s and $+$'s.
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
It's different:
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
An ASCII art $8$ using only four $0$'s and $+$'s.
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
up vote
27
down vote
It's different:
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
An ASCII art $8$ using only four $0$'s and $+$'s.
It's different:
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
$0;;;0$
$,++$
An ASCII art $8$ using only four $0$'s and $+$'s.
answered Sep 7 at 14:46
JonMark Perry
14.7k52972
14.7k52972
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = !8
because
In C/C++, ! refers to the logical not operator, where all non-zero values become 0, and 0 becomes 1.
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
3
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (!
,&&
,||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
,&
,|
,^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.
â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
16
down vote
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = !8
because
In C/C++, ! refers to the logical not operator, where all non-zero values become 0, and 0 becomes 1.
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
3
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (!
,&&
,||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
,&
,|
,^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.
â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
16
down vote
up vote
16
down vote
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = !8
because
In C/C++, ! refers to the logical not operator, where all non-zero values become 0, and 0 becomes 1.
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = !8
because
In C/C++, ! refers to the logical not operator, where all non-zero values become 0, and 0 becomes 1.
answered Sep 7 at 22:48
l k
1612
1612
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
3
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (!
,&&
,||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
,&
,|
,^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.
â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
3
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (!
,&&
,||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
,&
,|
,^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.
â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
I think this should be "the binary not operator".
â Raimund Krämer
Sep 11 at 8:17
3
3
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
@RaimundKrämer ITYM unary not. C99 calls it the "logical negation operator" and files it in the chapter "Unary operators".
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:56
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
But !8 can be a subfactorial of 8.
â rus9384
Sep 12 at 11:39
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (
!
, &&
, ||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
, &
, |
, ^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer, In programming, we have logical operators and bitwise operators. Logical operators (
!
, &&
, ||
in C) operate on boolean values (true and false). Bitwise operators (~
, &
, |
, ^
in C) operate on bits (0 and 1) of numbers. Calling either set binary operators would be confusing, as both set work on binary values.â ikegami
Sep 13 at 11:12
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
@Raimund Krämer Also, "binary operator" can mean any operator on 2 values (as opposed to a unary operator such as ! or ~)
â l k
2 days ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
14
down vote
It's just a matter of perspective ...
0!/0 + 0!/0 = âÂÂ
My reasoning....
0/0 is undefined so we have to first change the 0's into 1's with 0!
(...and why did you write the infinity symbol sideways in your question?)
1
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
1
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
It's just a matter of perspective ...
0!/0 + 0!/0 = âÂÂ
My reasoning....
0/0 is undefined so we have to first change the 0's into 1's with 0!
(...and why did you write the infinity symbol sideways in your question?)
1
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
1
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
It's just a matter of perspective ...
0!/0 + 0!/0 = âÂÂ
My reasoning....
0/0 is undefined so we have to first change the 0's into 1's with 0!
(...and why did you write the infinity symbol sideways in your question?)
It's just a matter of perspective ...
0!/0 + 0!/0 = âÂÂ
My reasoning....
0/0 is undefined so we have to first change the 0's into 1's with 0!
(...and why did you write the infinity symbol sideways in your question?)
edited Sep 8 at 19:31
answered Sep 7 at 18:20
rrauenza
2494
2494
1
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
1
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
add a comment |Â
1
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
1
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
1
1
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
x/0 isn't infinite, though...
â Adam Smith
Sep 8 at 17:49
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
Lateral thinking was yesterday. Vertical thinking is the new kid in town!
â Jens
Sep 11 at 15:59
1
1
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
x/0 == +infinity, per ieee 754
â j__m
Sep 15 at 12:40
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
$$[+!0]+[0]-!0-!0$$
Works in JavaScript. Hit F12 and type this into the console (This equation editor uses "âÂÂ" instead of "-" so copy and paste doesn't quite work). Otherwise, it works in the same way as @malioboro and @Arnaldur's answers.
In fact, you can make any JavaScript application run just by using a combination of 6 characters, which is what inspired me to make this. I substituted + for 0 when asking JSF**k to do 10-2.
3
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
2
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
3
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
$$[+!0]+[0]-!0-!0$$
Works in JavaScript. Hit F12 and type this into the console (This equation editor uses "âÂÂ" instead of "-" so copy and paste doesn't quite work). Otherwise, it works in the same way as @malioboro and @Arnaldur's answers.
In fact, you can make any JavaScript application run just by using a combination of 6 characters, which is what inspired me to make this. I substituted + for 0 when asking JSF**k to do 10-2.
3
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
2
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
3
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
$$[+!0]+[0]-!0-!0$$
Works in JavaScript. Hit F12 and type this into the console (This equation editor uses "âÂÂ" instead of "-" so copy and paste doesn't quite work). Otherwise, it works in the same way as @malioboro and @Arnaldur's answers.
In fact, you can make any JavaScript application run just by using a combination of 6 characters, which is what inspired me to make this. I substituted + for 0 when asking JSF**k to do 10-2.
$$[+!0]+[0]-!0-!0$$
Works in JavaScript. Hit F12 and type this into the console (This equation editor uses "âÂÂ" instead of "-" so copy and paste doesn't quite work). Otherwise, it works in the same way as @malioboro and @Arnaldur's answers.
In fact, you can make any JavaScript application run just by using a combination of 6 characters, which is what inspired me to make this. I substituted + for 0 when asking JSF**k to do 10-2.
answered Sep 7 at 12:35
Namyts
4445
4445
3
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
2
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
3
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
add a comment |Â
3
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
2
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
3
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
3
3
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
I like this abuse of javascript a lot. !0 for true, +!0 for 1, [1] for array containing 1, [1]+[0] for concatenate two arrays to get the string "10" ; subtract 1 from that twice to end up as 8. Love it.
â Ross Presser
Sep 8 at 4:10
2
2
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
but the question is tagged mathematics and not programming
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:21
3
3
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
Who says you can use square brackets....
â user52269
Sep 8 at 6:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
$concat(0!,0) - 0! - 0! = 8$
becomes:
$concat(1,0) - 1 - 1 = 8$
and finally:
$10 - 2 = 8$
cool puzzle!
2
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
$concat(0!,0) - 0! - 0! = 8$
becomes:
$concat(1,0) - 1 - 1 = 8$
and finally:
$10 - 2 = 8$
cool puzzle!
2
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
$concat(0!,0) - 0! - 0! = 8$
becomes:
$concat(1,0) - 1 - 1 = 8$
and finally:
$10 - 2 = 8$
cool puzzle!
$concat(0!,0) - 0! - 0! = 8$
becomes:
$concat(1,0) - 1 - 1 = 8$
and finally:
$10 - 2 = 8$
cool puzzle!
answered Sep 7 at 5:38
Arnaldur
971
971
2
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
2
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
2
2
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
Great answer! But it has already been answered (check out @malioboro 's answer). Nonetheless, welcome to the Puzzling Stack Exchange (Puzzling.SE)! Since you are new to the Stack Exchange community, let alone this site, I strongly suggest that you visit the Help Center for more info; in particular, I suggest going here, then here for questions (not answers) :D
â user477343
Sep 7 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 equiv 8$
Adding the symbol $-$ over the equals sign makes it a congruence sign.
Considering the congruence relation, we must be working mod N, where N divides 8.
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 equiv 8$
Adding the symbol $-$ over the equals sign makes it a congruence sign.
Considering the congruence relation, we must be working mod N, where N divides 8.
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 equiv 8$
Adding the symbol $-$ over the equals sign makes it a congruence sign.
Considering the congruence relation, we must be working mod N, where N divides 8.
$0 + 0 + 0 + 0 equiv 8$
Adding the symbol $-$ over the equals sign makes it a congruence sign.
Considering the congruence relation, we must be working mod N, where N divides 8.
answered Sep 8 at 6:39
Vaelus
40124
40124
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Just put the minus symbol over the first zero to give it the look of a figure 8 and use plus to add the zeros.
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
2
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
3
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
1
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Just put the minus symbol over the first zero to give it the look of a figure 8 and use plus to add the zeros.
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
2
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
3
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
1
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Just put the minus symbol over the first zero to give it the look of a figure 8 and use plus to add the zeros.
Just put the minus symbol over the first zero to give it the look of a figure 8 and use plus to add the zeros.
answered Sep 7 at 11:37
Sentinel
1,012112
1,012112
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
2
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
3
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
1
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
2
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
3
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
1
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
Great answer, but unfortunately, this is a duplicate of @TheSimpliFire 's answer.
â user477343
Sep 7 at 11:51
2
2
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@user477343 No, not quite, since this answer puts a line through the 0 instead of putting two 0s on top of each other. In this answer, only one 0 becomes an 8.
â Fabian Röling
Sep 7 at 12:02
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
@FabianRöling As I read it, it uses the minus symbol to be put over the first zero and make it look like an $8$. In my imagination, I assumed the zero is the bottom circle of $8$ since there is something over it, of which is another circle $largecirc$. I did not fully understand what this answer was talking about in saying to use a subtraction symbol, but just assumed it was just like TheSimpliFire's answer due to their similarity; and since that is a great answer, I thought this was great, too. If you understand this answer, may you please explain to me in other words if you can? :
â user477343
Sep 7 at 12:09
3
3
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
@user477343 It uses the horizontal line of the minus sign to cut through the middle of the $0$. It is "over" the zero in the sense of overwritten.
â Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 7 at 12:55
1
1
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
Yeah. 'over' in the sense of "in front of" on a dimension between you and your monitor.
â Sentinel
Sep 7 at 14:44
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Here is an answer that doesn't use the semi-factorial or any concatenation.
$$0 + 0 - 0! / 0 = (-8)!$$
The left side is $-1/0$ and the right side is $-infty$.
Plugging the expression into Wolfram.
4
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Here is an answer that doesn't use the semi-factorial or any concatenation.
$$0 + 0 - 0! / 0 = (-8)!$$
The left side is $-1/0$ and the right side is $-infty$.
Plugging the expression into Wolfram.
4
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Here is an answer that doesn't use the semi-factorial or any concatenation.
$$0 + 0 - 0! / 0 = (-8)!$$
The left side is $-1/0$ and the right side is $-infty$.
Plugging the expression into Wolfram.
Here is an answer that doesn't use the semi-factorial or any concatenation.
$$0 + 0 - 0! / 0 = (-8)!$$
The left side is $-1/0$ and the right side is $-infty$.
Plugging the expression into Wolfram.
answered Sep 8 at 0:20
user1717828
1,474617
1,474617
4
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
add a comment |Â
4
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
4
4
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
Division by zero is undefined (the limit of 0!/x as x goes to 0 is plus or minus infinity) and so are negative integer factorials (they are not equivalent to negative infinity). Even if they both evaluated to +âÂÂ, you can prove nonsense assuming you can equate infinities and treat like a real number. E.g., |1/0| = +âÂÂ, adding 1 to positive infinity is still positive infinity, hence |1/0| + 1 = +âÂÂ, hence |1/0| = |1/0| +1 by transitivity of equality. Subtract |1/0| from both sides and prove 0 = 1.
â dr jimbob
Sep 8 at 18:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Question limits the symbols, not the operations. So with the symbol +
can make the operator ++
.
(++(++(++(++(++(++(++0000))))))) = 8
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
1
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
1
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
2
You need to pass an l-value to the++
and--
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.
â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Question limits the symbols, not the operations. So with the symbol +
can make the operator ++
.
(++(++(++(++(++(++(++0000))))))) = 8
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
1
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
1
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
2
You need to pass an l-value to the++
and--
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.
â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Question limits the symbols, not the operations. So with the symbol +
can make the operator ++
.
(++(++(++(++(++(++(++0000))))))) = 8
Question limits the symbols, not the operations. So with the symbol +
can make the operator ++
.
(++(++(++(++(++(++(++0000))))))) = 8
edited Sep 7 at 23:53
answered Sep 7 at 21:23
David Browne - Microsoft
1293
1293
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
1
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
1
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
2
You need to pass an l-value to the++
and--
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.
â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
add a comment |Â
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
1
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
1
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
2
You need to pass an l-value to the++
and--
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.
â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
I think you'd need the prefix form if you actually wanted that to work.
â LegionMammal978
Sep 7 at 23:48
1
1
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
Doh. Of course you can't increment a literal in the first place.
â David Browne - Microsoft
Sep 7 at 23:55
1
1
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
but that symbol doesn't exist in mathematics
â phuclv
Sep 8 at 4:20
2
2
You need to pass an l-value to the
++
and --
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
You need to pass an l-value to the
++
and --
operators, and neither their result or a literal is one.â NieDzejkob
Sep 8 at 14:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
concatenate(0!, 0) - concatenate(0! + 0!) = 8.
Note that 0! = 1
(0!, 0) = 10, and (0! + 0!) = 2, so 10 - 2 = 8
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
concatenate(0!, 0) - concatenate(0! + 0!) = 8.
Note that 0! = 1
(0!, 0) = 10, and (0! + 0!) = 2, so 10 - 2 = 8
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
concatenate(0!, 0) - concatenate(0! + 0!) = 8.
Note that 0! = 1
(0!, 0) = 10, and (0! + 0!) = 2, so 10 - 2 = 8
concatenate(0!, 0) - concatenate(0! + 0!) = 8.
Note that 0! = 1
(0!, 0) = 10, and (0! + 0!) = 2, so 10 - 2 = 8
edited Sep 11 at 1:59
Alto
908116
908116
answered Sep 11 at 0:57
Nick
191
191
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
add a comment |Â
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Unfortunately concatenate is not a valid operation.
â boboquack
Sep 11 at 1:37
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Congrats, concatenation is allowed now! Good answer, but people beat you to it. Welcome to Puzzling.SE! Here's a bonus puzzle: What's the word? Hilarious - extremely amusing
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:47
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
Also, concatenation is combination. Basically, (2, 4) = 24, you get it.
â Alto
Sep 11 at 1:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Add a - above the equals to get $0000 equiv 8$, which is true assuming we are working in the ring $mathbbZ/mathbb2Z$. (Note I'm trying to avoid writing $[0] = [8]$...)
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Add a - above the equals to get $0000 equiv 8$, which is true assuming we are working in the ring $mathbbZ/mathbb2Z$. (Note I'm trying to avoid writing $[0] = [8]$...)
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Add a - above the equals to get $0000 equiv 8$, which is true assuming we are working in the ring $mathbbZ/mathbb2Z$. (Note I'm trying to avoid writing $[0] = [8]$...)
Add a - above the equals to get $0000 equiv 8$, which is true assuming we are working in the ring $mathbbZ/mathbb2Z$. (Note I'm trying to avoid writing $[0] = [8]$...)
edited Sep 14 at 2:45
a stone arachnid
1355
1355
answered Sep 11 at 15:52
Gus314
211
211
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This could work too:
(0!+0+0)/0 = âÂÂ
Explanation
(0!+0+0)/0 = 1/0 which is infinity (8 but put horizontally)
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This could work too:
(0!+0+0)/0 = âÂÂ
Explanation
(0!+0+0)/0 = 1/0 which is infinity (8 but put horizontally)
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This could work too:
(0!+0+0)/0 = âÂÂ
Explanation
(0!+0+0)/0 = 1/0 which is infinity (8 but put horizontally)
This could work too:
(0!+0+0)/0 = âÂÂ
Explanation
(0!+0+0)/0 = 1/0 which is infinity (8 but put horizontally)
answered Sep 13 at 9:10
Michal B.
1314
1314
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
$ ((0! + 0!)$)*(0! + 0!) = 2^2*2 = 8 $.
Further explanation:
The $$$ operation denotes the superfactorial defined as : $ n$ = (n!) uparrow uparrow (n!)$.
3
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
$ ((0! + 0!)$)*(0! + 0!) = 2^2*2 = 8 $.
Further explanation:
The $$$ operation denotes the superfactorial defined as : $ n$ = (n!) uparrow uparrow (n!)$.
3
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
$ ((0! + 0!)$)*(0! + 0!) = 2^2*2 = 8 $.
Further explanation:
The $$$ operation denotes the superfactorial defined as : $ n$ = (n!) uparrow uparrow (n!)$.
$ ((0! + 0!)$)*(0! + 0!) = 2^2*2 = 8 $.
Further explanation:
The $$$ operation denotes the superfactorial defined as : $ n$ = (n!) uparrow uparrow (n!)$.
edited Sep 7 at 14:41
answered Sep 7 at 14:28
Ria
354111
354111
3
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
add a comment |Â
3
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
3
3
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
Good idea, but make sure to read the question fully. It gives you a list of what operations can be used and $ is not one of them.
â Sensoray
Sep 7 at 15:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
If you turn the problem around
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
If you turn the problem around
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If you turn the problem around
If you turn the problem around
answered Sep 8 at 8:09
Florian F
8,94612260
8,94612260
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Similar to @rrauenza's answer
â TheSimpliFire
Sep 8 at 8:11
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
Yes. A different way to express the same idea.
â Florian F
Sep 8 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As per the list of allowed symbols we are clearly allowed to use "$,$" and "$.$"
This is doubly evident as otherwise how would we use the $mathbbconcatenation$ function without a comma to separate the arguments?
So the solution is:
$0! - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 0! + 0!!) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 1 + 1) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 2) = .8$
$1 - .2 = .8$
You may simplify0!!
as0!
.
â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As per the list of allowed symbols we are clearly allowed to use "$,$" and "$.$"
This is doubly evident as otherwise how would we use the $mathbbconcatenation$ function without a comma to separate the arguments?
So the solution is:
$0! - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 0! + 0!!) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 1 + 1) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 2) = .8$
$1 - .2 = .8$
You may simplify0!!
as0!
.
â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
As per the list of allowed symbols we are clearly allowed to use "$,$" and "$.$"
This is doubly evident as otherwise how would we use the $mathbbconcatenation$ function without a comma to separate the arguments?
So the solution is:
$0! - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 0! + 0!!) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 1 + 1) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 2) = .8$
$1 - .2 = .8$
As per the list of allowed symbols we are clearly allowed to use "$,$" and "$.$"
This is doubly evident as otherwise how would we use the $mathbbconcatenation$ function without a comma to separate the arguments?
So the solution is:
$0! - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 0! + 0!!) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 0 + 1 + 1) = .8$
$1 - mathbbconcatenation(., 2) = .8$
$1 - .2 = .8$
answered Sep 10 at 16:55
SamYonnou
22115
22115
You may simplify0!!
as0!
.
â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
add a comment |Â
You may simplify0!!
as0!
.
â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
You may simplify
0!!
as 0!
.â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
You may simplify
0!!
as 0!
.â Cà Âur
Sep 11 at 15:28
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
I felt like $0+0!+0!!$ looked more elegant/purposeful as if it was part of a sequence like $a(n, m) = a(n-1,m)!; a(0,m)=m$
â SamYonnou
Sep 11 at 16:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
$00^00 = 0^0$ which is indeterminate. In some sense, an indeterminate form can be equal to any value, since in Calculus, a function that approaches "$0^0$" can approach any real value, including $8$. So in that sense, $0^0 = 8$.
If you don't like concatenating two zeroes as "$00$", then $0^0 + 0 + 0$ also works.
7
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
$00^00 = 0^0$ which is indeterminate. In some sense, an indeterminate form can be equal to any value, since in Calculus, a function that approaches "$0^0$" can approach any real value, including $8$. So in that sense, $0^0 = 8$.
If you don't like concatenating two zeroes as "$00$", then $0^0 + 0 + 0$ also works.
7
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
$00^00 = 0^0$ which is indeterminate. In some sense, an indeterminate form can be equal to any value, since in Calculus, a function that approaches "$0^0$" can approach any real value, including $8$. So in that sense, $0^0 = 8$.
If you don't like concatenating two zeroes as "$00$", then $0^0 + 0 + 0$ also works.
$00^00 = 0^0$ which is indeterminate. In some sense, an indeterminate form can be equal to any value, since in Calculus, a function that approaches "$0^0$" can approach any real value, including $8$. So in that sense, $0^0 = 8$.
If you don't like concatenating two zeroes as "$00$", then $0^0 + 0 + 0$ also works.
edited Sep 7 at 13:30
answered Sep 7 at 13:22
RothX
1173
1173
7
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
add a comment |Â
7
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
7
7
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
There are no widely accepted definitions under which your equation is considered to be true.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 7 at 17:34
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
@TannerSwett Didn't think it was that unreasonable. My thinking is you can construct a function $f(x)^g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ both limit to zero at some point $c$ such that $f(x)^g(x)$ limits to any real number at $c$, including $8$. Admittedly, writing $0^0 = 8$ is basically mathematically false. It is indeterminate for the reason I stated above. But this is Puzzling SE, not Mathematics SE, so I figured it was ok to think outside the box and not be formal with math.
â RothX
Sep 10 at 13:23
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
Yeah, I dunno if I'd call it "that unreasonable". But if I saw a student say that the equation $0^0 = 8$ is true, I'd think that they probably misunderstand what an indeterminate form means. If I saw a math professor say the same thing, I'd ask them if they could please be a little more rigorous.
â Tanner Swett
Sep 10 at 13:59
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
@TannerSwett Yeah, I completely agree. I'd never write $0^0 = 8$ in a mathematical setting, but since this is a puzzle, not a math problem, I thought maybe I could stretch a bit.
â RothX
Sep 11 at 1:58
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Factorial of Zero equals to 1. And 4!!=8.
Then you can put plus and power to end up the story.
((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!
4
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Factorial of Zero equals to 1. And 4!!=8.
Then you can put plus and power to end up the story.
((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!
4
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Factorial of Zero equals to 1. And 4!!=8.
Then you can put plus and power to end up the story.
((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!
Factorial of Zero equals to 1. And 4!!=8.
Then you can put plus and power to end up the story.
((0!+0!)^(0!+0!))!!
edited Sep 8 at 10:53
answered Sep 8 at 7:48
Salman Khan Majlish
11
11
4
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
add a comment |Â
4
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
4
4
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
this is almost un_defined's answer, given 17hours ago, except for you haven't added the double factorial to make the sum correct - yours gives 2^2 which is 4
â JonMark Perry
Sep 8 at 7:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
Welcome to Puzzling.SE! As JonMark Perry has noted, please check that your answer hasn't already been given (and that it's correct) before posting it. You should also hide answers inside spoiler tags, in case anyone wants to have a go at the puzzle themselves without seeing the answers first. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site.
â F1Krazy
Sep 8 at 8:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Similar to @Vaelus
$0+0+0+0 leq 8$
Explanation
You can get the $leq$ by adding a $-$ inclined on top of the $=$
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Similar to @Vaelus
$0+0+0+0 leq 8$
Explanation
You can get the $leq$ by adding a $-$ inclined on top of the $=$
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Similar to @Vaelus
$0+0+0+0 leq 8$
Explanation
You can get the $leq$ by adding a $-$ inclined on top of the $=$
Similar to @Vaelus
$0+0+0+0 leq 8$
Explanation
You can get the $leq$ by adding a $-$ inclined on top of the $=$
answered Sep 8 at 19:44
villasv
1387
1387
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f71581%2fmake-0-0-0-0-8%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
37
Just put a slash over the equal sign!
â Yout Ried
Sep 7 at 0:40
11
@YoutRied: standard loophole: neither funny nor creative. It's usually the first answer on any math puzzle.
â Thomas Weller
Sep 7 at 18:40
1
Are we allowed to move anything, or is it insert only?
â ctrl-alt-delor
Sep 7 at 19:33
1
Are you allowed to concatenate operators? (e.g
!!
,**
,--
, and++
)â Ole Tange
Sep 9 at 1:09
@OleTange The accepted answer does concatenate operators. Also, the question allows it.
â haykam
Sep 9 at 13:59