mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Puzzles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-07-02, 14:24   #1
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

37268 Posts
Default July 2018

July 5.11.4_19
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-04, 17:14   #2
SmartMersenne
 
Sep 2017

1438 Posts
Default

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?
SmartMersenne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-04, 18:08   #3
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

2×17×59 Posts
Default

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.
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-05, 02:21   #4
KangJ
 
Jul 2015

118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartMersenne View Post
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?
I tried all combination cases for ages <= 800, and there is no solution obscure with 5 more years.

Is there any rules for the obscure triplets?
KangJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-05, 11:22   #5
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

133378 Posts
Default

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 1.5-2x 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 2018-07-05 at 11:26
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-05, 16:37   #6
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26·131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
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 1.5-2x 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.
same product = same geometric mean. same sum= same arithmetic mean. the first can be acheived by rearranging the factors. second takes same average difference. for the sum parity if there was an odd number of odds before there still needs to be after.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2018-07-05 at 16:40
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-06, 05:25   #7
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

32×7×73 Posts
Default 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.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-06, 06:01   #8
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

111110101102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
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.
That does not add up.
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 obscure-s 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 2018-07-06 at 06:02
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-06, 08:46   #9
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

5·1,171 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
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.
You need to add the restriction a <= b <= c otherwise a b c will match b a c etc
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-06, 08:51   #10
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2·3·19·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
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.
Something is definitely wrong. Check your logic again.

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 5-er 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
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-07-06, 09:09   #11
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

5×1,171 Posts
Default

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.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
July 2017 R. Gerbicz Puzzles 6 2017-08-08 22:58
July 2016 Xyzzy Puzzles 4 2016-08-06 22:51
July 2015 Xyzzy Puzzles 16 2015-08-19 16:13
July 2014 Xyzzy Puzzles 6 2014-11-02 19:05
Happy July 4th LaurV Lounge 8 2012-07-06 00:13

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:00.

Wed Apr 14 00:00:10 UTC 2021 up 5 days, 18:41, 1 user, load averages: 1.82, 1.85, 1.72

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.