#1

Here's the thing: a * b * c

Sounds easy?

Here's the hard part:

a must equal between 4 and 32

b must equal between 15 and 9999

c must equal between 1 and 50

The answer must be 5,000,001.

Go....

Sounds easy?

Here's the hard part:

a must equal between 4 and 32

b must equal between 15 and 9999

c must equal between 1 and 50

The answer must be 5,000,001.

Go....

#2

are decimals allowed?

#3

10.0010021002andsomemorethatcalculatorwouldn'tshow

9999

50

9999

50

#4

are decimals allowed?

No, sorry!

#6

No, sorry!

well shit.

#7

lol fuck that, I'm on sprang breayuk

#8

well shit.

Yep

The network where I work doesn'[t let me go there! (It usually blocks images too otherwise I'd ask for a screenshot)

Actually, I'm always kind of surprised it lets me get to UG forums, most other forums I use are blocked too - the network guys have the net pretty well locked down.

#9

Wrong, because it has to have these rules as stated in OP

a must equal between 4 and 32

b must equal between 15 and 9999

c must equal between 1 and 50

For the record, that site says 5000001 = 3 x 47 x 35461

*Last edited by BjarnedeGraaf at Mar 28, 2014,*

#10

this website is magical

Wrong, because it has to have these rules as stated in OP

For the record, that site says 5000001 = 3 x 47 x 35461

derp

*Last edited by Dregen at Mar 28, 2014,*

#11

Wrong, because it has to have these rules as stated in OP

For the record, that site says 5000001 = 3 x 47 x 35461

30 x 3546.1 x 47

happy?

#12

30 x 3546.1 x 47

happy?

TS said no decimals

TBH I'm not sure if it's possible with the rules laid out by TS.

#13

Well I only looked at the OP

#14

2+2=4

#15

The answer is 5,000,001

#16

25.

And the car and the person will hit the ground at the same time.

And the car and the person will hit the ground at the same time.

#17

32x6250x25=5,000,000

Is that not close enough?

EDIT 5,000,331 (21x7681x31)

Is that not close enough?

EDIT 5,000,331 (21x7681x31)

*Last edited by bass-fale47 at Mar 28, 2014,*

#18

if you trust my C programming skills (very little, tbh. i know how to use 'for' statements though) then you can safely conclude it isn't possible using those given numbers

*Last edited by Dregen at Mar 28, 2014,*

#19

Wrong, because it has to have these rules as stated in OP

For the record, that site says 5000001 = 3 x 47 x 35461

It isn't wrong. Those are distinct prime factors. That is the only way you can write that number as a multiple of three other numbers. Those conditions are impossible to meet.

These kind of problems aren't "hard". All you need is the prime factorization of a number.

*Last edited by MakinLattes at Mar 28, 2014,*

#20

32x6250x25=5,000,000

Is that not close enough?

Already got a few examples for 5,000,000

TBH I'm not sure if it's possible with the rules laid out by TS.

Those conditions are impossible to meet.

if you trust my C programming skills (very little, tbh. i know how to use 'for' statements though) then you can safely conclude it isn't possible using those given numbers

You're most likely right. I've been experimenting with different options for a few days now & haven't found anything. My development team haven't found a way to replicate that result either. Asking the internet was a bit of a final resort to try & beat my team! I had no idea if it's possible or not.

The thing is, it's to test a requirement put on the software we're developing that the maximum result allowed is 5,000,000. It copes with that OK, it copes with numbers significantly higher (like bass-fale47's other option provided), but for an accurate test we should attempt a run of 5,000,001 to prove it fails.

As it isn't possible I'll just have to cover it in my project report

*Last edited by GaryBillington at Mar 28, 2014,*

#21

Already got a few examples for 5,000,000

You're most likely right. I've been experimenting with different options for a few days now & haven't found anything. My development team haven't found a way to replicate that result either. Asking the internet was a bit of a final resort to try & beat my team! I had no idea if it's possible or not.

The thing is, it's to test a requirement put on the software we're developing that the maximum result allowed is 5,000,000. It copes with that OK, it copes with numbers significantly higher (like bass-fale47's other option provided), but for an accurate test we should attempt a run of 5,000,001 to prove it fails.

As it isn't possible I'll just have to cover it in my project report

well, if this helps at all (once again, not a coder but it should work fine):

source code (fixed it):

results (tested after edit, same results):

if you have a program that can edit/compile/run code in C, you can just plug in your desired answer inside the 'if' statement. and for adjusting bounds of each variable: on its 'for' statement: first parameter is the lower bound, second parameter is the upper bound. should've used scanf but whatever i guess, it's been awhile.

*Last edited by Dregen at Mar 28, 2014,*

#22

why is it "maths" if you are only asking about one kind

british grammar is really stupid like that

also "mathematics" is not a "plural" word since it is uncountable

and so the "s" at the end doesn't indicate a plural

therefore when abbreviated the "s" should not be at the end

it's just simple common sense which apparently the uk lacks

british grammar is really stupid like that

also "mathematics" is not a "plural" word since it is uncountable

and so the "s" at the end doesn't indicate a plural

therefore when abbreviated the "s" should not be at the end

it's just simple common sense which apparently the uk lacks

#23

for 5,000,000 (sorry, this is too much fun for me ):

#24

why is it "maths" if you are only asking about one kind

british grammar is really stupid like that

also "mathematics" is not a "plural" word since it is uncountable

and so the "s" at the end doesn't indicate a plural

therefore when abbreviated the "s" should not be at the end

it's just simple common sense which apparently the uk lacks

It's about maths, not language. go make a language thread if you feel the need to bitch about it.

It isn't wrong. Those are distinct prime factors. That is the only way you can write that number as a multiple of three other numbers. Those conditions are impossible to meet.

These kind of problems aren't "hard". All you need is the prime factorization of a number.

I said it was wrong if you incorporate the rules as stated in the OP by TS... so yes, it was wrong. the answer should've been "Impossible"

If there were no rules it would be dead easy and some suggestions in this and TS, most likely, wouldn't have made the thread in the first place...

*Last edited by BjarnedeGraaf at Mar 28, 2014,*

#25

It's about maths, not language. go make a language thread if you feel the need to bitch about it.

I said it was wrong if you incorporate the rules as stated in the OP by TS... so yes, it was wrong. the answer should've been "Impossible"

If there were no rules it would be dead easy and some suggestions in this and TS, most likely, wouldn't have made the thread in the first place...

Very true - I'm sure someone in my team would have figured it out long before I started trying to beat them!

And in my opinion, the language "English (US)" only exists in Windows and is an insult to those of us who can spell correctly

@Dregen - will check what you've done at home, the images you've attached are blocked by my office network.

#26

It's about maths, not language. go make a language thread if you feel the need to bitch about it.

Hey, I'm just saying. It makes no sense from a logical point to refer to it as "maths".

#27

Hey, I'm just saying. It makes no sense from a logical point to refer to it as "maths".

Yeah, so you're being irrelevant to the discussion, so why you are posting in this thread I'll never know

#28

if abc = 5000001 then ab is a factor of 5000001

Factors of 500001 are 1, 3, 47, 141, 35461, 106383

So we can try ab = each of these in turn to see if there's a solution within the bounds specified in the OP

1 is too small

3, 47, 35461 are prime and so there's no integer solution for ab

141 = 3 * 47, but c would have to be > 9999

106383 = 3*35461, but 35461 is prime and > 9999

-> no integer solution.

If decimals were allowed there would be an infinite number of solutions.

Factors of 500001 are 1, 3, 47, 141, 35461, 106383

So we can try ab = each of these in turn to see if there's a solution within the bounds specified in the OP

1 is too small

3, 47, 35461 are prime and so there's no integer solution for ab

141 = 3 * 47, but c would have to be > 9999

106383 = 3*35461, but 35461 is prime and > 9999

-> no integer solution.

If decimals were allowed there would be an infinite number of solutions.

#29

I love it when I'm right. be right back going for a victory wank.

#30

why is it "maths" if you are only asking about one kind

british grammar is really stupid like that

also "mathematics" is not a "plural" word since it is uncountable

and so the "s" at the end doesn't indicate a plural

therefore when abbreviated the "s" should not be at the end

it's just simple common sense which apparently the uk lacks

Agreed.

#31

I love it when I'm right. be right back going for a victory wank.

#32

It isn't wrong. Those are distinct prime factors. That is the only way you can write that number as a multiple of three other numbers. Those conditions are impossible to meet.

yah. didn't they teach you the fundamental theorem in school, gary? shit's been around since euclid.

ftr, 5,000,002 = 2x7x19x18797 = 7x38x1797 which fits your conditions just fine.

#33

Just wrote a program to brute force this and it didn't give me anything. Is the answer no solution?

edit: nvm someone else did the same thing

edit: nvm someone else did the same thing

#34

69 x 666 x 420

lol

lol

#35

I said it was wrong if you incorporate the rules as stated in the OP by TS... so yes, it was wrong. the answer should've been "Impossible"

It's about maths, not language.

Right. Showing the irreducible factorization of the number demonstrates that the criteria set in the OP cannot be met, i.e. it is "impossible".

*Last edited by MakinLattes at Mar 28, 2014,*

#36

so in terms of abc ratio is it 1a 2b 3c