mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Puzzles (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   My off the top of my head sequence. (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2881)

Uncwilly 2004-08-10 20:00

My off the top of my head sequence.
 
This is a seuqnece that I just came up with. It may be a classical one, but I haven't seen it around. Brainiacs should sit on their hands for a while.
Those that think that they have it, use the spoiler to post the next number.

3, 4, 5, 11, 39, .........

:rolleyes:

axn 2004-08-10 21:31

[spoiler]
379
[/spoiler]

marc 2004-08-11 00:08

[spoiler]118[/spoiler]

Uncwilly 2004-08-11 14:03

Some how both of you can't be right. I'll give a bit more time before revealing my answer.

marc 2004-08-11 14:40

I'd bet mine was wrong. If the sequence is special in some way I'd guess it wasn't my answer which was just a boring polynomial.

jebeagles 2004-08-11 14:51

my guess
 
[spoiler]184[/spoiler]

flava 2004-08-11 19:54

[SPOILER]184[/SPOILER]

Uncwilly 2004-08-11 20:06

4 guesses with 2 being the same. Would those that submitted numbers care to also post (spoilerised of course) the next term after that, i.e. the 7th number in the set.?

axn 2004-08-11 20:34

[spoiler]
14363
[/spoiler]

marc 2004-08-11 21:12

[spoiler]289[/spoiler]

jebeagles 2004-08-11 21:13

[spoiler]1985[/spoiler]

Uncwilly 2004-08-13 00:39

OK, post, spoilerised, you suggested key to the pattern.

jebeagles 2004-08-13 04:15

[spoiler]f(n)=f(n-1)*f(n-3) - f(n-2); for f(1)=3, f(2)=4, f(3)=5[/spoiler]

axn 2004-08-13 04:54

[spoiler]
f(n)=f(n-1)*f(n-2) - f(n-1) - f(n-2)
[/spoiler]

Uncwilly 2004-08-13 13:26

Ok, here is the way that I derived the sequence. axn1 has the correct sequence, but my formula is simpler.

[spoiler]n[sub]1[/sub]=3, n[sub]2[/sub]=4
n[sub]x[/sub] = (n[sub]x-1[/sub]*n[sub]x-2[/sub]) - (n[sub]x-1[/sub]+n[sub]x-2[/sub])[/spoiler]

wblipp 2004-08-13 14:16

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]Ok, here is the way that I derived the sequence. axn1 has the correct sequence, but my formula is simpler.[/QUOTE]

Do you really think so?
[spoiler]The only difference is that your expression adds two pairs of parentheses. I don't see how that counts as simpler.[/spoiler]

tom11784 2004-08-13 16:38

something else about this sequence:

[spoiler] Each term is the largest number that cannot be composed by a linear combination of a non-negative number[/spoiler]
[spoiler] of each of the previous two terms (holds at least until 11 39 379)[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I figured this part out back in middle school after a question at the MathCounts countdown [/spoiler]
[spoiler] was what is the largest number that cannot be created by adding 3s and 4s. [/spoiler]

also, could an admin please erase my post above this as the spoiler seems to have made my message on one line only


All times are UTC. The time now is 23:23.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.