Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on mander.xyz
mathmemesยทMath MemesbyBB84

Are you in the 95%?

::: spoiler Spoiler More like 99.9995%

https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c2532359h2760821_the_emoji_problem__part_i

solution:

๐ŸŽ = 36875131794129999827197811565225474825492979968971970996283137471637224634055579
๐ŸŒ = 154476802108746166441951315019919837485664325669565431700026634898253202035277999
๐Ÿ = 4373612677928697257861252602371390152816537558161613618621437993378423467772036

:::

View original on mander.xyz
39

22 replies

lemmy.world

Is this one of those problems that looks trivially easy to solve but has actually been an open problem in math for centuries and drives all who attempt it to inevitable madness?

Getting a real "Collatz" vibe from this

20
BB84reply
mander.xyz

There is a solution. It's just 80 digits long. I added it to the OP in the spoiler.

18
very_well_lostreply
lemmy.world

Rad! Are there solutions for all numbers, I wonder? Or just 4?

ETA: I found at least one solution that works for 2. (1, 1, 3)

7
BB84reply

Yeah based on the graphical description in the linked post there probably are other solutions. But I don't think it would work for all integer.

2

No it's fructose, radiation and enzymes digesting your tongue

1
sh.itjust.works

The "truly marvelous" solution :)

Edit: Wait, was your "yes" a response to the question in the image or the question in the title?

1
lemy.lol

7, 14, 79 comes pretty close. 35, 132, 627 are even closer.

6
BB84reply

Have you tried 36875131794129999827197811565225474825492979968971970996283137471637224634055579, 154476802108746166441951315019919837485664325669565431700026634898253202035277999, 4373612677928697257861252602371390152816537558161613618621437993378423467772036 ?

18
lemmy.ca

Iโ€™ll be honest, I cleaned up the equation into a similar format, saw it was some elliptic curve thing and said to myself โ€œthis is where Iโ€™d send it to a computerโ€, but obviously the solution is so large I doubt it wins be easily to numerically derive.

4
BB84reply

Yeah it's beyond floating point precision range so doing it on a computer requires special care, but it's still very doable, as the linked post demonstrates!

2

You reached the end