Use 2, 0, 1 and 8 to make 109
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.
Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.
Here are some examples to this problem:
- Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67
- Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
- Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.
mathematics
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.
Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.
Here are some examples to this problem:
- Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67
- Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
- Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.
mathematics
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.
Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.
Here are some examples to this problem:
- Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67
- Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
- Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.
mathematics
Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.
Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.
Here are some examples to this problem:
- Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67
- Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
- Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8
many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.
mathematics
mathematics
edited Sep 11 at 16:37
asked Sep 10 at 22:17
tom
1,9911630
1,9911630
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32
add a comment |
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32
1
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32
add a comment |
17 Answers
17
active
oldest
votes
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
I think...
$sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$
add a comment |
up vote
71
down vote
Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:
$108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.
Explanation:
Formally:
$$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$
where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.
14
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
1
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
1
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
3
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
5
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
25
down vote
This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.
Solution:
$$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$
Explanation:
First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.
4
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
1
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
4
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
If you allow
decimals
then you can do
$$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
1
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
2
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
The trick is to:
... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109
(in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)
2
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
3
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
Hmmm, possibly:
Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.
and for posterity:
$20!^15+1+8$
7
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
2
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
3
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
1
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
This probably won't count. It uses $!$, but not in $x!$.
$$108 + !2$$
Explanation
$!n$ is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular $!2 = 1$.
1
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet
$108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$
or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above
$(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$
or
$8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$
I was thinking about trying to
Change the base of the numbers
but didn't get anywhere with that idea...
Looking forward to seeing the solution!
3
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
$$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
I break the rules, BUT!
work with 1 and 20
1 - 20 = -19
109 = arccos(sin(-19))
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
2
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
2
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
1
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I have another trigonometric answer.
$$8^2 - arctan (0-1) = 109$$
the base of tangents is $45$, subtract $-45$, add $45$ to $64$
1
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed
Assuming you can have leading 0's...
$ 2^0 = 1$
$ sqrt81 = 09$
Concatenate the two
$109$
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:
Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
$$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$
Explained:
!2 == false
, and!false == true
.True
is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.
2
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
1
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:
$(2 * 8^2) - (8 * 2) - (frac12 * 8) + 1^0 = 109$
2
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring
$$dfrac218020=109$$
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
add a comment |
17 Answers
17
active
oldest
votes
17 Answers
17
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
I think...
$sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$
add a comment |
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
I think...
$sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$
add a comment |
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
I think...
$sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$
I think...
$sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$
edited Sep 11 at 13:27
Surb
561137
561137
answered Sep 11 at 13:23
bluestapler
59626
59626
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
71
down vote
Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:
$108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.
Explanation:
Formally:
$$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$
where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.
14
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
1
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
1
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
3
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
5
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
71
down vote
Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:
$108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.
Explanation:
Formally:
$$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$
where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.
14
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
1
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
1
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
3
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
5
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
71
down vote
up vote
71
down vote
Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:
$108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.
Explanation:
Formally:
$$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$
where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.
Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:
$108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.
Explanation:
Formally:
$$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$
where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.
edited Sep 11 at 4:59
JonMark Perry
15.5k52975
15.5k52975
answered Sep 11 at 0:11
Surb
561137
561137
14
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
1
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
1
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
3
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
5
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
|
show 4 more comments
14
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
1
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
1
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
3
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
5
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
14
14
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
– Hugh
Sep 11 at 0:56
1
1
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
(+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
– TheSimpliFire
Sep 11 at 6:15
1
1
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
– JuanRocamonde
Sep 11 at 16:20
3
3
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
@Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
– Lord Farquaad
Sep 11 at 17:41
5
5
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:22
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
25
down vote
This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.
Solution:
$$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$
Explanation:
First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.
4
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
1
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
4
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
25
down vote
This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.
Solution:
$$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$
Explanation:
First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.
4
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
1
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
4
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
25
down vote
up vote
25
down vote
This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.
Solution:
$$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$
Explanation:
First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.
This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.
Solution:
$$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$
Explanation:
First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.
answered Sep 11 at 5:59
Carl Schildkraut
54818
54818
4
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
1
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
4
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
add a comment |
4
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
1
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
4
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
4
4
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:12
1
1
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
– orlp
Sep 14 at 6:58
4
4
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
@orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
If you allow
decimals
then you can do
$$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
1
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
2
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
If you allow
decimals
then you can do
$$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
1
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
2
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
up vote
19
down vote
If you allow
decimals
then you can do
$$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$
If you allow
decimals
then you can do
$$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$
answered Sep 11 at 6:02
Carl Schildkraut
54818
54818
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
1
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
2
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
add a comment |
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
1
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
2
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
Sorry no decimals, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:19
1
1
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
@tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
– Carl Schildkraut
Sep 11 at 6:20
2
2
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:19
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
– Agi Hammerthief
Sep 13 at 14:16
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
@AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
– IanF1
Sep 15 at 12:02
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
The trick is to:
... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109
(in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)
2
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
3
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
The trick is to:
... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109
(in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)
2
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
3
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
The trick is to:
... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109
(in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)
The trick is to:
... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109
(in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)
answered Sep 11 at 10:09
xhienne
3,892631
3,892631
2
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
3
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
add a comment |
2
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
3
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
2
2
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
i like this one.
– Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
Sep 11 at 10:15
3
3
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:27
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
Hmmm, possibly:
Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.
and for posterity:
$20!^15+1+8$
7
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
2
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
3
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
1
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
Hmmm, possibly:
Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.
and for posterity:
$20!^15+1+8$
7
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
2
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
3
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
1
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
Hmmm, possibly:
Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.
and for posterity:
$20!^15+1+8$
Hmmm, possibly:
Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.
and for posterity:
$20!^15+1+8$
edited Sep 11 at 8:07
answered Sep 11 at 4:33
JonMark Perry
15.5k52975
15.5k52975
7
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
2
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
3
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
1
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
add a comment |
7
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
2
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
3
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
1
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
7
7
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
+1 that was my first guess also!
– Christoph
Sep 11 at 4:51
2
2
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:18
3
3
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
– seeellayewhy
Sep 11 at 18:04
1
1
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
– JonMark Perry
Sep 11 at 18:55
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
This probably won't count. It uses $!$, but not in $x!$.
$$108 + !2$$
Explanation
$!n$ is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular $!2 = 1$.
1
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
This probably won't count. It uses $!$, but not in $x!$.
$$108 + !2$$
Explanation
$!n$ is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular $!2 = 1$.
1
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
This probably won't count. It uses $!$, but not in $x!$.
$$108 + !2$$
Explanation
$!n$ is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular $!2 = 1$.
This probably won't count. It uses $!$, but not in $x!$.
$$108 + !2$$
Explanation
$!n$ is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular $!2 = 1$.
edited Oct 4 at 3:16
a stone arachnid
1635
1635
answered Sep 11 at 4:50
Steve B
2959
2959
1
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
add a comment |
1
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
1
1
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
Plus one, but sorry not correct
– tom
Sep 11 at 6:21
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet
$108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$
or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above
$(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$
or
$8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$
I was thinking about trying to
Change the base of the numbers
but didn't get anywhere with that idea...
Looking forward to seeing the solution!
3
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet
$108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$
or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above
$(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$
or
$8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$
I was thinking about trying to
Change the base of the numbers
but didn't get anywhere with that idea...
Looking forward to seeing the solution!
3
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet
$108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$
or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above
$(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$
or
$8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$
I was thinking about trying to
Change the base of the numbers
but didn't get anywhere with that idea...
Looking forward to seeing the solution!
I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet
$108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$
or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above
$(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$
or
$8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$
I was thinking about trying to
Change the base of the numbers
but didn't get anywhere with that idea...
Looking forward to seeing the solution!
answered Sep 11 at 9:50
Namyts
4647
4647
3
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
add a comment |
3
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
3
3
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:30
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
$$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
$$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
$$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$
$$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$
answered Sep 11 at 6:22
TheSimpliFire
1,980427
1,980427
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
add a comment |
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 8:14
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
– trolley813
Sep 11 at 9:29
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
@trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:20
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
$(+1)$ I like this one :)
– user477343
Sep 12 at 12:13
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
I break the rules, BUT!
work with 1 and 20
1 - 20 = -19
109 = arccos(sin(-19))
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
2
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
2
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
1
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
I break the rules, BUT!
work with 1 and 20
1 - 20 = -19
109 = arccos(sin(-19))
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
2
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
2
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
1
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
I break the rules, BUT!
work with 1 and 20
1 - 20 = -19
109 = arccos(sin(-19))
I break the rules, BUT!
work with 1 and 20
1 - 20 = -19
109 = arccos(sin(-19))
edited Sep 11 at 9:19
answered Sep 11 at 9:02
ponut64
1412
1412
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
2
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
2
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
1
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
add a comment |
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
2
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
2
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
1
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:35
2
2
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
How did you find this answer?
– hkBst
Sep 11 at 16:48
2
2
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
– ponut64
Sep 12 at 9:34
1
1
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
– Tanner Swett
Sep 13 at 5:26
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I have another trigonometric answer.
$$8^2 - arctan (0-1) = 109$$
the base of tangents is $45$, subtract $-45$, add $45$ to $64$
1
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I have another trigonometric answer.
$$8^2 - arctan (0-1) = 109$$
the base of tangents is $45$, subtract $-45$, add $45$ to $64$
1
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
I have another trigonometric answer.
$$8^2 - arctan (0-1) = 109$$
the base of tangents is $45$, subtract $-45$, add $45$ to $64$
I have another trigonometric answer.
$$8^2 - arctan (0-1) = 109$$
the base of tangents is $45$, subtract $-45$, add $45$ to $64$
edited Oct 4 at 2:48
a stone arachnid
1635
1635
answered Sep 12 at 18:58
ponut64
1412
1412
1
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
add a comment |
1
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
1
1
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
neat solution :-) plus one
– tom
Sep 12 at 23:05
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed
Assuming you can have leading 0's...
$ 2^0 = 1$
$ sqrt81 = 09$
Concatenate the two
$109$
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed
Assuming you can have leading 0's...
$ 2^0 = 1$
$ sqrt81 = 09$
Concatenate the two
$109$
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed
Assuming you can have leading 0's...
$ 2^0 = 1$
$ sqrt81 = 09$
Concatenate the two
$109$
This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed
Assuming you can have leading 0's...
$ 2^0 = 1$
$ sqrt81 = 09$
Concatenate the two
$109$
answered Sep 11 at 16:02
Kyle Fairns
1513
1513
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
add a comment |
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
Nice try, plus one
– tom
Sep 11 at 16:35
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:
Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
$$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$
Explained:
!2 == false
, and!false == true
.True
is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.
2
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:
Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
$$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$
Explained:
!2 == false
, and!false == true
.True
is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.
2
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:
Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
$$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$
Explained:
!2 == false
, and!false == true
.True
is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.
This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:
Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
$$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$
Explained:
!2 == false
, and!false == true
.True
is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.
edited Sep 12 at 2:45
answered Sep 12 at 0:31
a stone arachnid
1635
1635
2
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
add a comment |
2
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
2
2
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:03
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
1
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
1
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109
We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109
edited Sep 11 at 9:03
Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
3,354529
3,354529
answered Sep 11 at 9:00
jitendra
411
411
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
1
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
add a comment |
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
1
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
– Glorfindel
Sep 11 at 9:11
1
1
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
– tom
Sep 11 at 12:32
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :
Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :
answered Sep 12 at 7:37
Sentinel
1,042112
1,042112
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
add a comment |
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
ok, plus one for invention
– tom
Sep 12 at 9:02
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
– Sentinel
Sep 12 at 20:33
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:
$(2 * 8^2) - (8 * 2) - (frac12 * 8) + 1^0 = 109$
2
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:
$(2 * 8^2) - (8 * 2) - (frac12 * 8) + 1^0 = 109$
2
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:
$(2 * 8^2) - (8 * 2) - (frac12 * 8) + 1^0 = 109$
Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:
$(2 * 8^2) - (8 * 2) - (frac12 * 8) + 1^0 = 109$
edited Oct 4 at 2:42
a stone arachnid
1635
1635
answered Sep 13 at 12:00
Agi Hammerthief
1205
1205
2
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
add a comment |
2
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
2
2
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
$109 = 108+2^0$...
– Surb
Sep 28 at 23:28
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring
$$dfrac218020=109$$
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring
$$dfrac218020=109$$
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring
$$dfrac218020=109$$
Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring
$$dfrac218020=109$$
edited Sep 12 at 9:52
Ian Fako
577115
577115
answered Sep 12 at 9:45
Ruben Dijkstra
92
92
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
add a comment |
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Digits are only allowed to be used once.
– Jaap Scherphuis
Sep 12 at 12:31
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
Agh, must have glossed over that one.
– Ruben Dijkstra
Sep 12 at 12:43
add a comment |
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%2f71885%2fuse-2-0-1-and-8-to-make-109%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
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32