What's the next number... (1 Viewer)

[Anders Englund]

1 10 11 22 14 45

Edit: I screwed this one up. The series should read:
1 10 11 12 14 24
I leave the orginal to show you how dumb I am. :b

--Anders

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Is this going to be another one of those trick questions?

The last one didn't come out so hot.

Glenn

 

[Paul Bond]

My suppostition is below, but I have to really stretch my theory to make it work going from 1 to 10.


59

 

[Alex Spindler]

29?

 

[Anders Englund]

Sorry, Paul. You got one digit right.

Oh, and you might wanna think of the first number as "01".

--Anders

 

[Kevin_Spradley]

I'm with Paul on this one. It is a stretch to go from 1 to 10,

but my answer is the same as paul's

59

 

[Anders Englund]

And Alex is the winner!!!!

--Anders

 

[Ron Pinsonneault]

70

 

[MarkHastings]

834,688,365.43???

Everyone sing along:
Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...Infinity bottles of beer,
You take one down, pass it around, Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...

Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...Infinity bottles of beer,
You take one down, pass it around, Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...

Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...Infinity bottles of beer,
You take one down, pass it around, Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...

Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...Infinity bottles of beer,
You take one down, pass it around, Infinity bottles of beer on the wall...

etc.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I'm in trouble. If I am indeed right, my method to get there may be flawed. My case for my answer is not able to support either the 1 or the 1 to 11 bracket.

The second digit was derived by the sum of the digits in the number that preceded it. Example, the 5 in 45 was the sum of the 1 and 4 in 14. This doesn't work for the 1, as the number that follows is a 10.

The first digit I got by subtracting the two preceding digits and adding a 1. So, the 2 in 29 was based on subtracting 4 from 5 and adding 1. The 4 in 45 was based on the difference from 4 and 1 and adding 1. This doesn't work on the lower numbers.

So, I got the right answer by a flawed method. So shoot me.

 

[Anders Englund]

Sorry, Alex that was the wrong method.

The first digit is derived from the median value (rounded) of all preceding SECOND digits. In this case (1+0+1+2+4+5)/6 = 13/6 = >2.
The second digit is the sum of all preceding first digits. 0+1+1+2+1+4 = 9.

Maybe this was too far fetched. A friend of mine managed to solve it... In two days.

--Anders

 

[Kevin_Spradley]

Isn't that calculation actually the mean value? The median is the middle number in a set.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Anders, I don't think that method would work either01
10 = [1/1=1]_________________ [0=0]
11 = [(1+0)/2=0.5=1]_________ [0+1=1]
22 = [(1+0+1)/3=0.66=1]______ [0+1+1=2]
14 = [(1+0+1+2)/4=1]_________ [0+1+1+2=4]
45 = [(1+0+1+2+4)/5=1.6=2]___ [0+1+1+2+1=5]
29 = [(1+0+1+2+4+5)/6=2.16=2] [0+1+1+2+1+4=9]

So, the first digit method doesn't work for either 22 or 45.

 

[Anders Englund]

Isn't that calculation actually the mean value?

Yea, you're right. I'll blame that on my bad english...

Alex:
You're quite right... I screwed up the orginal series.
It should be:

1 10 11 12 14 24

--Anders