It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A math challenge

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I would like some help from some of you who are good at math.

I would like to know the steps following:

1: 8
2: 16
3: 70

Between step 1 and 2 there is a 100% increase. Between 2 and 3 there is a 437,5 % increase. What is step 4 and 5 following the same exponential trend?

I am not sure how to calculate the next steps, so help is appreciated.


Edit: not sure if this is correct forum, but seemed the best place.
edit on 4-6-2013 by scratchmane because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Did you try something easy like feeding excel your numbers and letting it calculate a best-fit-curve?

Anyway, I did:

Best fit (exponential): y = 2.3737 e^1.0845 (fitting index 0.9584)
Best fit (linear): y = 31x -30.667 (fitting index 0.845)
Best fit (logarithmic, *not very good for this data*): y = 51.601 ln(x) + 0.5147 (fitting index 0.7225)
Best fit (polynomic): y = 23x^2 -61x+46 (fitting index 1, as expected by only 3 datapoints and a formula with x^2)
Best fit (potency): y = 6.8004x^1.8694 (fitting index 0.8789)

Okay, the very best is obviously the fourth formular (polynomic), which would give you y(4) = 170, y(5) = 316.
If this has to be an exponential formular, it would give you y(4) = 181.7169 and y(5) = 537.5114.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Dude I don't wanna state the obvious, but
1.could it be a birth date, or
2. Are there more numbers missing from this equation ?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Did you try something easy like feeding excel your numbers and letting it calculate a best-fit-curve?

Anyway, I did:

Best fit (exponential): y = 2.3737 e^1.0845 (fitting index 0.9584)
Best fit (linear): y = 31x -30.667 (fitting index 0.845)
Best fit (logarithmic, *not very good for this data*): y = 51.601 ln(x) + 0.5147 (fitting index 0.7225)
Best fit (polynomic): y = 23x^2 -61x+46 (fitting index 1, as expected by only 3 datapoints and a formula with x^2)
Best fit (potency): y = 6.8004x^1.8694 (fitting index 0.8789)

Okay, the very best is obviously the fourth formular (polynomic), which would give you y(4) = 170, y(5) = 316.
If this has to be an exponential formular, it would give you y(4) = 181.7169 and y(5) = 537.5114.


Didn't know you could use excell for that.

Thanks for your effort


So the steps would be:
8
16
70
181,7
537,5 ?

1st step 8-16 is 100%
2nd step is 16-70 is 437,5%
3rd step is 70-181,7 is 259,57%
4th step is 181,7-537,5 is 295,8 %

The 3rd and 4th step should see a larger %-wise increase shouldn't it? I thought both would have increasingly higher % increase than 437,5.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by scratchmane
 


Need more info...

You might have falsely inferred that the next number in succession is a simply calculation
of proportion. Could this be an IQ type question where every possible answer from every possibly
angle must be calculated?

So where did you get the question? Homework from math class? More info please....



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by scratchmane
 


Need more info...

You might have falsely inferred that the next number in succession is a simply calculation
of proportion. Could this be an IQ type question where every possible answer from every possibly
angle must be calculated?

So where did you get the question? Homework from math class? More info please....


When I said "math challenge" it wasn't in the form of a mystery, more in the line of: "I don't know how to calculate this!"



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I figured that but I was just checking...

sorry...I loathe calculation



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by scratchmane
 


Is it printed just as you have it here, with colons?

1: 8
2: 16
3: 70

or
1. 8
2. 16
3. 70



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by scratchmane
I would like some help from some of you who are good at math.

I would like to know the steps following:

1: 8
2: 16
3: 70

Between step 1 and 2 there is a 100% increase. Between 2 and 3 there is a 437,5 % increase. What is step 4 and 5 following the same exponential trend?

I am not sure how to calculate the next steps, so help is appreciated.


Edit: not sure if this is correct forum, but seemed the best place.
edit on 4-6-2013 by scratchmane because: (no reason given)


okay same exponential trend huh?

So 70 would be 140
140 would be 612.5



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by scratchmane
 


Is it printed just as you have it here, with colons?

1: 8
2: 16
3: 70

or
1. 8
2. 16
3. 70



The colons or periods are incidental. Could write it as: 8, 16, 70 or

8
16
70



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I just did a google search for 8:16:70 and a lot of the responses I got were mainly dates, BUT there were also quite a few hits for LINEAR ALGEBRA equations.

I don't know what linear algebra is, but I hope this can help you on your quest.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I love number sequences...so I had to register just to solve it for you



8, 16, 70, 496, 3852

8^x + 8 - (x^x - x)

x=0
8^0 + 8 - (0^0 - 0)
1 + 8 - (1 - 0)
1 + 8 - 1 = 8

x=1
8^1 + 8 - (1^1 - 1)
8 + 8 - (1 - 1)
8 + 8 - 0 = 16

x=2
8^2 + 8 - (2^2 - 2)
64 + 8 - (4 - 2)
64 + 8 - 2 = 70

x=3
8^3 + 8 - (3^3 - 3)
512 + 8 - (27 - 3)
512 + 8 - 24 = 496

x=4
8^4 + 8 - (4^4 - 4)
4096 + 8 - (256 - 4)
4096 + 8 - 252 = 3852



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


Awesoem job, how did you come around to that formula? trial and error?

i was crunching some numbers.. i even went into the exponential growth formula lol.. i ave up after 20 mins.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Folks, this is ATS, these are not numbers in a sequence, these are codes in the bible that indicate Col. Mustard did it with the knife, in the study.


well done firemonkey and welcome to ATS.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by firemonkey
 


Awesoem job, how did you come around to that formula? trial and error?

i was crunching some numbers.. i even went into the exponential growth formula lol.. i ave up after 20 mins.


Yes, just seeing a start of a pattern involving 8 and realizing that 64 (8^2) was close to 70. I knew I had to get to add 6 to get to 70, but adding 8 and subtracting 2 works just as well...so I realized the first two terms were deceptively simple. Just kind of worked backwards from there.

It is probably not the only solution, but it is one solution.
edit on 4-6-2013 by firemonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Folks, this is ATS, these are not numbers in a sequence, these are codes in the bible that indicate Col. Mustard did it with the knife, in the study.


well done firemonkey and welcome to ATS.


Damn! I came up with Miss Scarlett in the Library with the candlestick.However,if you transpose the numeric sequence with the appropriate Nostradamus quatrains it reveals:"The world as we know it will end sometime after 2013"



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
I love number sequences...so I had to register just to solve it for you



8, 16, 70, 496, 3852

8^x + 8 - (x^x - x)

x=0
8^0 + 8 - (0^0 - 0)
1 + 8 - (1 - 0)
1 + 8 - 1 = 8

x=1
8^1 + 8 - (1^1 - 1)
8 + 8 - (1 - 1)
8 + 8 - 0 = 16

x=2
8^2 + 8 - (2^2 - 2)
64 + 8 - (4 - 2)
64 + 8 - 2 = 70

x=3
8^3 + 8 - (3^3 - 3)
512 + 8 - (27 - 3)
512 + 8 - 24 = 496

x=4
8^4 + 8 - (4^4 - 4)
4096 + 8 - (256 - 4)
4096 + 8 - 252 = 3852


8
16
70
496
3852

8-16 100%
16-70 437,5%
70-496 708,5%
496-3852 776,6%

This is definitely closer to what I was expecting, at least the step from 70 to 496. But somehow the next step seems to small. Again; I have yet to acquire the math skills myself, so I appreciate all of your efforts. And maybe the number IS accurate, time will tell in any case.

And I had to chuckle a bit, with the ideas presented to what the numbers signify, but I guess I should have anticipated this, considering this is ATS

edit on 4-6-2013 by scratchmane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Folks, this is ATS, these are not numbers in a sequence, these are codes in the bible that indicate Col. Mustard did it with the knife, in the study.


well done firemonkey and welcome to ATS.


Please send me a new laptop. I just spewed tea all over it.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join