Tag Archives: function

My friend, Knox S., introduced me to this problem.  According to a post on The Telegraph’s Education page, this was originally  posted on Facebook by Randall Jones.

The first line is fine by the standard rules of arithmetic, but as soon as you read the 2nd and 3rd lines, you know something is amiss.  What could be the output of line 4?

The Telegraph post above claims there are two answers.  Sadly, that post suggests there are only two solutions.  The reality is that there is an infinite number of correct answers.

I first share the two most commonly proffered solutions suggested by the Telegraph as the only answers.  I follow this with Knox’s clever use of an incremental number base.  Finally, I offer a more generalized approach to support my claim of many more solutions.

STANDARD SOLUTIONS

Consistent with the first three lines, the same rule to line 4 “proves” the answer is 40:

While nothing requires it, this approach is recursive.  I’ve not seen anyone say this, but the 40 approach requires the equations to appear in the given order.  If you give the equations in a different order, the rule is no longer consistent.  In particular, if you wanted a 5th line, what would it be?  There’s nothing clear about how to extend this solution.

• THE ANSWER IS 96:  Alternatively, you can multiply the two numbers on the left and add that product to the first number.  This procedure is consistent with the first three lines, so the solution to line 4 must be 96:

The nice thing about this approach is that the solution is explicit, not recursive.  What’s obviously counter-intuitive is why you would first multiply the given numbers, and then why you would add the result to the first number, not the second.  This approach is consistent with the given information, so it is valid.

Unlike the first solution, this multiplicative approach is not commutative.  By this rule, 1+4 yields 5, as shown, but 4+1 would be $4+(4*1)=8$.  Nothing in the problem statement required commutativity, so no worries.

Another good aspect of this algorithm is that the order of the equations is now irrelevant.  It applies no matter what numbers are “added” on the left side of the equation.  This is definitely more satisfying.

CHANGE THE NUMBER BASE

• THE ANSWER IS 201:  Knox noticed that if you changed the number base, you could find another legit pattern.  The first line is standard arithmetic, but how could the next lines be consistent, too?  You know 2+5 doesn’t give 12 in standard base-10 arithmetic, but if you use base-5, $2+5=7=1*5^1+2*5^0=12_5$.

Unfortunately, in base-5, line 1 would be $(1+4)_5=10_5$ and line 3 would be $(3+6)_5=14_5$, both inconsistent.  Knox’s cleverest move was to vary the number base.  The 3rd line is true in base-4; since the 1st line is true in any base larger than five, he found a consistent pattern by applying base-6 to line 1:

Following this pattern, the next line would be base-3, giving 201 as the answer:

The best part of Knox’s solution is that he maintains the addition integrity of the left side.  The down-side is that this approach works for only one more line.  Any 5th line would give a base-2 (binary) answer, and since base-1 does not exist, the problem would end there.

Knox’s approach also allows you to use any numbers you want for the left-hand sums.  But notice that answers depend on where you write the sum.  For example, if (2+5) was in any other line, you would not get 12.  In line 1, $(2+5)_6=11_6$, in line 3, you’d get $(2+5)_4=13_4$.

By now, you should see that any any rule could work so long as you are consistent.  Because standard arithmetic does not apply, solvers should feel free to invoke any functions or algorithms desired.  One way to do this is to think of each line as the inputs (left side) and output (right side) of a three-variable function.

• THE ANSWER IS 96:  One possible function is $z=f(x,y)=a*x^2+b*y^2+c$ for some values of a, b, and c that passes through (1,4,5), (2,5,12), and (3,6,21).  I used my TI-Nspire CAS to solve the resulting system:

That means if x and y are the given left-side numbers and z is the right-side answer, the equation $\frac{1}{3}*x+\frac{2}{3}*y-6=z$ satisfies the first three lines and the answer to line 4 is 96

• THE ANSWER IS $\displaystyle \frac{2574}{29}$:  If you can square the inputs, why not cube them?  That means another possible function is $z=f(x,y)=a*x^3+b*y^3+c$.  My CAS solution of the resulting system leads to the fractional answer:

The first three given equations essentially define three ordered triples–(1,4,5), (2,5,12), and (3,6,21)–so almost any equation you conceive with three unknown coefficients can be used to create a 3×3 system of equations.  The fractional solution for line 4 may not be as satisfying as any of the earlier approaches using only integers, but these last two examples make it clear that there should be an infinite number of solutions.

These last two solutions are especially nice because they are explicit and don’t depend on the order of the given information.  You can choose any two numbers to “add”, and the algorithms will work.

Notice also that all of these functions, except for Knox’s, are non-commutative.  No worries, the problem already broke free of standard rules in line 2.

ONE THAT DIDN’T WORK

The last two examples prove the existence of quadratic and cubic solutions, so why not a linear solution?  In other words, is there a 3D plane in the form $z=a*x+b*y+c$ containing the given points?

Unfortunately, the resulting 3×3 system didn’t solve. The determinant of the coefficient matrix is zero, suggesting an inconsistent or dependent system.  Upon further inspection, subtracting line 1 from line 2 in the planar system gives $a+b=7$.  Similarly, subtracting line 2 from line 3 gives $a+b=9$.  Since both can’t be simultaneously true, the system is inconsistent and has no solution.  It was worth the effort.

CONCLUSION

Since standard arithmetic didn’t apply after the first line and no other restrictions were in play, that opened the door to lots of creativity.  The many different solutions to this problem all hinge on finding some function–any function–that satisfied the first three lines.  Find one of these, and the last line is simple.  That some attempts won’t work is no hinderance.  Even when standard algorithms seem to apply, there is almost always the possibility of some creative twist when working with numerical sequences.

So, whenever you’re faced with a non-standard system, have fun, be creative, and develop something unexpected.

Learning to listen

Listen to and learn from your students; they hold the key to deeper understanding.

My precalculus class yesterday was exploring graphical behavior of rational functions.  We started with $\frac {1}{(x-2)^3(x+3)^{6}}$ which the group easily handled with their understanding of even and odd vertical asymptotes (VAs) from the previous class.

The curve approaches $0^+$ on the right, the VA at $x=2$ is odd so the rational function’s graph “passes through infinity” there, and “bounces off infinity” at $x=-3$.

We hadn’t explored what happened when rational functions had variable expressions in their numerators, and they had never seen holes in these curves, so I had no idea what they would do when I asked for the graphical behavior of $\frac {x-2}{(x-2)^3(x+3)^{6}}$ at $x=2$.  As a student, I was taught to perform algebraic simplifications, but I thankfully remained silent.

My students were initially bothered by the $\frac{0}{0}$  form of the function at $x=2$, and various clusters were working toward different solutions when student NC declared, “at $x=2$, the denominator has the dominant exponent, so there still is a VA at that point.  It might be a different kind of VA, but it’s a VA.”  In an instant, everyone in the room understood what was happening.  Changing the degree of the numerator’s factor in later examples ultimately led to holes on and off the x-axis, but NC’s dominance argument yielded far deeper and lasting understanding than my plans for an algebraic approach ever would have.

OK, I admit that you can get to the same place by doing algebraic simplifications, but my deliberate silence allowed my students to develop their own subtly different understanding that exceeded what I had planned to offer.  After years of being the information dispenser in my classes, I’m learning the uncomfortable lesson that it’s often better to set them up and then shut up.