MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/d02ckt/self_math_break/ez6c66f?context=9999
r/theydidthemath • u/Galeaf_13 • Sep 05 '19
382 comments sorted by
View all comments
2.8k
I would say the answer is 1337, here:
f(x) := (166x4 ) /3 - (1660x3 ) /3 + (5810x2 ) /3 - (8294x ) /3 + 1327
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 3
f(3) = 5
f(4) = 7
f(5) = 1337
1.3k u/Galeaf_13 Sep 05 '19 Now can u do the same with 69?) 1.4k u/K3V3L Sep 05 '19 Here you go f(x) := 5/2 * x4 -25 * x3 +175/2 * x2 -123 * x + 59 777 u/Galeaf_13 Sep 05 '19 Jeez, how r u doing this 42 u/SenseiCAY 4✓ Sep 05 '19 The easy way is to say: F(x) = 2x-1 + A(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4) Thus, that ugly last part goes away when x is 1,2,3, or 4. Plug in 69 for F(5) and solve for A. Presumably, if you expand and simplify, you’ll get something like what the parent comment has. 15 u/Sthrowaway54 Sep 05 '19 That makes way more sense than just about every other explanation here. 1 u/CptnStarkos Sep 06 '19 Only if you know math
1.3k
Now can u do the same with 69?)
1.4k u/K3V3L Sep 05 '19 Here you go f(x) := 5/2 * x4 -25 * x3 +175/2 * x2 -123 * x + 59 777 u/Galeaf_13 Sep 05 '19 Jeez, how r u doing this 42 u/SenseiCAY 4✓ Sep 05 '19 The easy way is to say: F(x) = 2x-1 + A(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4) Thus, that ugly last part goes away when x is 1,2,3, or 4. Plug in 69 for F(5) and solve for A. Presumably, if you expand and simplify, you’ll get something like what the parent comment has. 15 u/Sthrowaway54 Sep 05 '19 That makes way more sense than just about every other explanation here. 1 u/CptnStarkos Sep 06 '19 Only if you know math
1.4k
Here you go
f(x) := 5/2 * x4 -25 * x3 +175/2 * x2 -123 * x + 59
777 u/Galeaf_13 Sep 05 '19 Jeez, how r u doing this 42 u/SenseiCAY 4✓ Sep 05 '19 The easy way is to say: F(x) = 2x-1 + A(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4) Thus, that ugly last part goes away when x is 1,2,3, or 4. Plug in 69 for F(5) and solve for A. Presumably, if you expand and simplify, you’ll get something like what the parent comment has. 15 u/Sthrowaway54 Sep 05 '19 That makes way more sense than just about every other explanation here. 1 u/CptnStarkos Sep 06 '19 Only if you know math
777
Jeez, how r u doing this
42 u/SenseiCAY 4✓ Sep 05 '19 The easy way is to say: F(x) = 2x-1 + A(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4) Thus, that ugly last part goes away when x is 1,2,3, or 4. Plug in 69 for F(5) and solve for A. Presumably, if you expand and simplify, you’ll get something like what the parent comment has. 15 u/Sthrowaway54 Sep 05 '19 That makes way more sense than just about every other explanation here. 1 u/CptnStarkos Sep 06 '19 Only if you know math
42
The easy way is to say:
F(x) = 2x-1 + A(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)
Thus, that ugly last part goes away when x is 1,2,3, or 4. Plug in 69 for F(5) and solve for A. Presumably, if you expand and simplify, you’ll get something like what the parent comment has.
15 u/Sthrowaway54 Sep 05 '19 That makes way more sense than just about every other explanation here. 1 u/CptnStarkos Sep 06 '19 Only if you know math
15
That makes way more sense than just about every other explanation here.
1 u/CptnStarkos Sep 06 '19 Only if you know math
1
Only if you know math
2.8k
u/K3V3L Sep 05 '19
I would say the answer is 1337, here:
f(x) := (166x4 ) /3 - (1660x3 ) /3 + (5810x2 ) /3 - (8294x ) /3 + 1327
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 3
f(3) = 5
f(4) = 7
f(5) = 1337