/sci/ - Science & Math

3 = 3, by definition.

>>7698588
3 for sure.

9

>>7698588
56-7*2=42
42-6*2=30
30-5*2=20
etc

All the numbers on the left side of the equals sign is "X" and all the numbers on the right are "Y". The equation is (X*X) - X = Y
8*8 is 64 - 8 is 56
7*7 is 49 - 7 is 42
Goes on until
3*3 is 9 - 3 which is 6

>>7698601
this. although I figured it out by seeing every answer is just n*(n-1), so 3*2=6

>>7698599
20-4*2=12
12-3*2=6

>>7698588
Either 6 or 8. 8 if you look at the rate of change (-14, -12, -10 etc), 6 if you use f(x) = x^2 - x. There may be other patterns that fit, but these are the first that I came up with. There simply isn't enough information to say which one of the possible patterns is correct.

>>7698625
Wait I messed up, by 8 I meant 12.

>>7698627
no, you meant 6. 20-8=12 but that would be for 4, which the OP left out of the pic to confuse people. The next rate of change is -6, so it's 12-6=6

>>7698588
6

I think its12 but can anyone tell theanswer for sure

8*7=56
7*6=42
6*5=30
5*4=20
4*3=12
And then 3*2=6

Depending on how you look at it

n*(n-1)
n*n-n

Its 6 or 9

>>7698588
It appears to be the function
f(x) = x(x-1)
These are called "oblong" numbers.
If so, then f(3) = 6

However, that may not be correct. The Online database of integer sequences has three pages of results for the sequence 20,30,42,56.
http://oeis.org/search?q=20%2C30%2C42%2C56&language=english&go=Search

Additionally, given a perfect pseudo-random number generator with an infinite number of seeds, there will be an infinite number (a smaller infinity, but infinite nonetheless) of seeds that will generate this sequence.

>Protip: You can't
Anon is correct. There are multiple answers to the question, and none is provably correct given the current constraints of the problem.

All of these faggots over thinking it. 8*7, 7*6, 6*5, 5*4, 3*3...

>>7698722
Which is how it goes with any sequence of numbers.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,X? X can be any number you want. Sure, they probably meant 8, but it is just a arbitrary list of numbers without context.

8x7
7x6
6x5
5x4
4x3
3x2=6
gee wiz, facebook qs

>>7698649
>n*(n-1)
>n*n-n
It's the same thing.

It's 15

3=3

Also those other equations are wrong. Here is my proof.

8=8
7=7
6=6
5=5

>>7698588
8*7 = 56
7*6 = 42

etc.

so

3*2 =6

or

3 = 6

>>7698628
Oh ok, I missed that. So by the rate of change rule, 4 = 12, 3 = 6. And by f(x), 4 = 12, 3 = 6. So both patterns actually fit. Anyone else find a pattern that gives a different result?

Its 9 lol

>>7698588
Pro-tip
It's 9 you faggot i would solve that if 3/4 of my brain was removed.

>>7698588

>3=?

6=30

6/2=30/2

3=15

QED

>>7698588
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

>>7698588
6

>>7699409

>>7698588
3 = 9

simple.

>>7698588
Protip: Of course you can't, none of these equalities are correct. But if I had to guess, I'd say 3 = 3.

>>7699399
>3=?

5=20

5*(3/5)=20*(3/5)

3=12

QED

>>7698588
>>7699221
this
3=6

>>7698588
12 isn't it? That was too easy so I think I am wrong.

>>7699849
No its 6, my bad.

times by itself minus itself once

/thread

>>7699882
Basically [eqn]x^(n-1)[/eqn]

>>7699924
Was that right? Do I win? can someone hold me and tell me its alright? Whisper math into my ear?

6

>>7699924
You mean x^(x-1), because same variable bruh

>>7699979
*shaking uncontrollably*

>>7699995
Did I get dubs?

>>7699996
Cmon dubs! We can do this.

I'm just fucking wondering why you skipped 4

56-14
42-12
30-10
20-8
12-6

>>7700001
Because OP thinks the mistakes of people who get distracted easily are somehow linked to lower intelligence.

>>7700014
you mad bro?

(n1-2)(n2-1)=x
n1=5 n2=4
(5-2)(4-1)=9

pic related

>>7698588
6

6

>>7699547

15=12

QED

3x5=/=20==15 pretard

12
>-14
>-12
>-10
>-8

9, faggot

>>7698588
6

>>7698588
Thanks for the pro-tip. I wont solve try it then.

Here's my work, I solved it using calculus.
It could also be solved using discrete math, but I found calculus more fun.

>>7698588
6

A fifth grader can figure out that it's n*(n-1)

>>7698588
6
What, did you expect us not to see that you skipped 4?

>>7701874
>not even factoring out an x at the end

>>7701874
Why do you need the second derivative and why is it 2? The difference between for example 20 and 12 would be at a difference of 8.

Lrn2function
Protip:You can

>>7698588
6

>8=56
false
>7=42
false
>6=30
false
>5=20
false
>3=?
clearly any number except 3 satisfies the pattern

>>7698588
obvious STEM bait

>>7698648
What I thought of too

>>7698591
OP's question is obviously retarded, so here's a better one. Is it possible to generate any finite sequence of numbers with just an analytical function? It probably isn't, so let's make it easier:
Is any increasing sequence of numbers generatable by an analytical function?
>for example
1,6,8,12,18,28,91...
Is there a function f: N ---> N that generates this sequence?

retard here. i get 9. although i can see where 6 would work, but that's only if you extrapolate 4 into it.. but 4 isn't in the problem. working with only what we're given why isn't it 9? is it something that only smart people change the rules and think outside the box to help them when it's convenient or necessary?

i'm not trying to be a smartass i'm genuinely curious. i know what i am and i accept it, but i still like to try to learn and better myself

>>7698588
use f(3), f(5), ..., you dumb fuck

>>7703121
yes : define e.g. f : N -> N as
f(0)=1, f(1) = 6, f(2)=12, f(3)=18, f(4)=28, f(5)=91, then for any n>=6, f(n) = any integer you like.

>>7698588
12

>>7703379
Sorry 6

>>7698588
1=2
2=6
3=12
The difference in Y us decreasing by 2 between each pair of Xs. (3) 20-8=12, (2) 12-6=6, (1) 6-4=2 (0) 2-2=0

It's 6. cmon guys

8 * 7 = 56
7 * 6 = 42
6 * 5 = 30
5 * 4 = 20
4 * 3 = 12
3 * 2 = 6

>>7698596

It's 6. Pretty obvious. OP is a faggot who left out 4 on purpose to try to sucker people

you're all worthless niggers

>>7703558
sucker people into what? working with only what they're given?

>>7699409
Step it up son.

>>7702645
no

>>7703823
Doing lossless optimization, anon.

3=15

The answer is 6, you walnut.

>>7703121

Analytic on what? R? C?

>>7703372

that's a function, but what analytic function matches this?

3x2 = 6

>>7700000

Fairly easy problem so I tried to see if a neural network I'm working on could solve it. Sure enough

Why is it not 9? It's not a geometric sequence and neither is it an arithmetic sequence. for it to follow the pattern 3=9 2=4 1=1.
Explain to me why i'm a dumbass for arriving at this conclusion.

>>7704327
You're a dumbass because you didn't see that it jumps from 5 to 3 meaning 4 is not listed.

6

f(n)=n(n-1)

>>7698588
This is literally 5th grade math, its 6
Its just n*(n-1) guys

When I opened this post a cold chill went through me and then pop, the power went out. When I went outside to check the circuit breaker it was all foggy outside. Kind of creeping me out.

>>7705486
>(n-1) guys
Assuming it's possible to reduce by 1

>>7698601
I saw it was 6 also, but this is the process my brain immediately recognized


8*7=56
7*6=42
6*5=30
5*4=20
4*3=12 - missing step
3*2=6

It's just a linear descending multiplier
/sci/ does my brain picking up on this pattern make me stupid or something? I saw it as a very basic pattern desu, am I missing some higher intrinsic properties or something.

>>7703413
underrated