Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**cooljackiec****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-13
- Posts: 162

Hmm 32/127 is what i found too

Also, anonimistefy, I got the 1st question. It was 30, not 32.

I see you have graph paper.

You must be plotting something

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Hm, how did you do it? Because I sure am getting 32 (the number is g0g0).

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**cooljackiec****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-13
- Posts: 162

Given a rational number, write it as a fraction in lowest terms and calculate the product of the resulting numerator and denominator. For how many rational numbers between 0 and 1 will 20! be the resulting product?

We have fraction m/n. I wrote the prime factorization of 20!, but I can't seem to find the largest possible value of m. Once I get the largest value of m, then I can just count the number of divisiors of m, but what do I do to get m.

Also:

Find the sum of all positive rational numbers that are less than 10 and that have denominator 30 when written in lowest terms.

I see you have graph paper.

You must be plotting something

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Hi

I'm getting 128 for the first one.

Also, look at post #52.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

That code seems to be slightly incomplete,

I will have you know that I am one of those rare people that can take anything apart and reassemble it using fewer parts. Minimalistic code is the hallmark of genius.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

That is all okay, but if things were a bit different, it could have missed a solution.

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2014-06-21 00:31:40)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

Why do you think that? The FindInstance command often looks like that. Small but powerful.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Because it would miss the ones that do not begin with 0.251...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

Hmmm, is that not the point?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

No, because you want stuff like 0.07251, 0.0251 and such.

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2014-06-21 04:36:35)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

Hi;

Yes I see that now. I did not take that into consideration. If I got the right answer then today must be my lucky day.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

I think you did get the right answer. Good work!

What do you think about the first question from post #53.

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2014-06-21 04:57:53)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

I think it is rather easy to get the answer.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Are you getting what I got?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

What are you getting (PM me)?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

I already posted my answer in post #54.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

Oh, I am sorry. That is the answer given.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Hm?

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2014-06-21 06:12:02)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

So, I would presume that the probability that we are both wrong is less than 1%. Significantly less.

Why the Hm?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

I did not understand what you meant. You got the same answer?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

Yes I did.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Ah, okay. Post #67 is confusing.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

Hmmm, do you see why the problem is easy?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,607

Well, I do not see why it is easy. I just know it was easy for me.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 89,048

I just know it was easy for me.

Hmmm.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

Offline