You are not logged in.
i want solutions
are people basicly saying there r no solutions on the web
what game is this
is it the enigma code or something
thanks but can anyone find any solutions online
could u post if u r looking
i was looking for a website with answers on i have the answer for 61
the formula is y²=(61x²)+1
i have worked out a lot but i would like any answers you can find
the answer to 61 is aproximately x=226million and y=1.76billion this is the highest until at least 109 according to my calulations
how do u do ur squares i had to copy urs
All historians know that there is a great deal of mystery and uncertainty concerning the details of the ever-memorable battle on that fatal day, October 14, 1066. My puzzle deals with a curious passage in an ancient monkish chronicle that may never receive the attention that it deserves, and if I am unable to vouch for the authenticity of the document it will none the less serve to furnish us with a problem that can hardly fail to interest those of my readers who have arithmetical predilections. Here is the passage in question.
"The men of Harold stood well together, as their wont was, and formed sixty and one squares, with a like number of men in every square thereof, and woe to the hardy Norman who ventured to enter their redoubts; for a single blow of a Saxon war-hatchet would break his lance and cut through his coat of mail.... When Harold threw himself into the fray the Saxons were one mighty square of men, shouting the battle-cries, 'Ut!' 'Olicrosse!' 'Godemitè!'"
Now, I find that all the contemporary authorities agree that the Saxons did actually fight in this solid order. For example, in the "Carmen de Bello Hastingensi," a poem attributed to Guy, Bishop of Amiens, living at the time of the battle, we are told that "the Saxons stood fixed in a dense mass," and Henry of Huntingdon records that "they were like unto a castle, impenetrable to the Normans;" while Robert Wace, a century after, tells us the same thing. So in this respect my newly-discovered chronicle may not be greatly in error. But I have reason to believe that there is something wrong with the actual figures. Let the reader see what he can make of them.
The number of men would be sixty-one times a square number; but when Harold himself joined in the fray they were then able to form one large square. What is the smallest possible number of men there could have been?
In order to make clear to the reader the simplicity of the question, I will give the lowest solutions in the case of 60 and 62, the numbers immediately preceding and following 61. They are 60 × 4² + 1 = 31², and 62 × 8² + 1 = 63². That is, 60 squares of 16 men each would be 960 men, and when Harold joined them they would be 961 in number, and so form a square with 31 men on every side. Similarly in the case of the figures I have given for 62. Now, find the lowest answer for 61.
I have tried to work out an answer to other numbers of original squares like having 11 squares.
does anyone have any answers to this problem
does anyone have the answers for the least number of 3s
not the four 4s but the least number of 4s
I have broken my calculator. Only the 4 and all the function keys are working.
What r the solutions to all the numbers below 100 using the least number of 4s possible?
Can anyone find a website with the answers to this problem i cant?
thanks henryzz