20180702, 14:24  #1 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
3726_{8} Posts 
July 2018

20180704, 17:14  #2 
Sep 2017
143_{8} Posts 
I can find a solution with 3 more years and 4 more, but 5 more seems impossible for ages <= 122 (this is the maximum I heard of any age: Jeanne Calment).
Did anyone managed to find a triplet that is obsucre and stays obscure for 5 more years? 
20180704, 18:08  #3 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
2×17×59 Posts 
I thought there bonus was for 5 consecutive years.
5 more years can be interpreted as 6 or even 9 consecutive years. A solution for a total of 5 consecutive years is easy to find. I have not attempted to find anything further than that. 
20180705, 02:21  #4  
Jul 2015
11_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Is there any rules for the obscure triplets? 

20180705, 11:22  #5 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
13337_{8} Posts 
Am doing a search for a and b less than 1000 and c less than 2000, a < b < c
I have noticed that c is often 1.52x as big as b in the larger runs. My code is reaching its limits. I think I am going to have to rethink to go much further. I currently store all the tuples with common sums and products. For a b c and a' b' c' to have the same product and sum, I don't think max(c, c') can be prime if a < b < c and a' < b' < c'. Not sure this helps much. Last fiddled with by henryzz on 20180705 at 11:26 
20180705, 16:37  #6  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}·131 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20180705 at 16:40 

20180706, 05:25  #7 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
3^{2}×7×73 Posts 
I must be doing something wrong...
Taking every a,b,c from 1 to 100 I only get 98 of the 1,000,000 that are NOT obscure,
Every other triplet has at least one other triplet with the same sum and product. 
20180706, 06:01  #8  
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
11111010110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
That would mean that just about any triplet would be s solution to the bonus problem. I think that would be in conflict with what has been posted here so far. I did not run for loops for 1 to 100 but to a value smaller than 100 and found much less obscures than that. Then again, perhaps if I extend the loops to 100 steps, I would get the same results as you. But intuitively, I doubt that. FWIW. Last fiddled with by a1call on 20180706 at 06:02 

20180706, 08:46  #9 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
5·1,171 Posts 

20180706, 08:51  #10  
Jun 2003
2·3·19·43 Posts 
Quote:
With 1<=a<=b<=c<=100, I get 1 triplet the leads to 5 consecutive "obscures" (which is unfortunately not enough to earn a star), and 6 triplets with 4 consecutive "obscures"  although one of them is merely the second term of the 5er mentioned. With 1<=a<=b<=c<=500, I get 6 additional triplets with 5 terms (in addition to the one from above), but no 6 term ones yet. Incidentally, here are a few ones with 3 terms where c<=40. Code:
2:24:25 4:20:26 8:14:25 8:14:34 10:24:26 

20180706, 09:09  #11 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
5×1,171 Posts 
c a decent amount larger was the trick that found it for me. Although my 1000 1000 2000 search found only one solution for 6 consecutive years it was overkill.
I think I have been using the wrong method storing all the obscure tuples. There are too many of them. The correct method is probably to go up through the products distributing factors. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
July 2017  R. Gerbicz  Puzzles  6  20170808 22:58 
July 2016  Xyzzy  Puzzles  4  20160806 22:51 
July 2015  Xyzzy  Puzzles  16  20150819 16:13 
July 2014  Xyzzy  Puzzles  6  20141102 19:05 
Happy July 4th  LaurV  Lounge  8  20120706 00:13 