Numbers on blackboard
$begingroup$
All numbers $1$ to $155$ are written on a blackboard, one time each. We randomly choose two numbers and delete them, by replacing one of them with their product plus their sum. We repeat the process until there is only one number left. What is the average value of this number?
I don't know how to approach it: For two numbers, $1$ and $2$, the only number is $1cdot 2+1+2=5$
For three numbers, $1, 2$ and $3$, we can opt to replace $1$ and $2$ with $5$ and then $3$ and $5$ with $23$, or
$1$ and $3$ with $7$ and then $2$, $7$ with $23$ or
$2$, $3$ with $11$ and $1$, $11$ with $23$
so we see that no matter which two numbers we choose, the average number remains the same. Does this lead us anywhere?
combinatorics
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
All numbers $1$ to $155$ are written on a blackboard, one time each. We randomly choose two numbers and delete them, by replacing one of them with their product plus their sum. We repeat the process until there is only one number left. What is the average value of this number?
I don't know how to approach it: For two numbers, $1$ and $2$, the only number is $1cdot 2+1+2=5$
For three numbers, $1, 2$ and $3$, we can opt to replace $1$ and $2$ with $5$ and then $3$ and $5$ with $23$, or
$1$ and $3$ with $7$ and then $2$, $7$ with $23$ or
$2$, $3$ with $11$ and $1$, $11$ with $23$
so we see that no matter which two numbers we choose, the average number remains the same. Does this lead us anywhere?
combinatorics
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
You have started the problem the right way, by looking at small similar questions. Perhaps if you work out the next case, keeping track of the way you got to each number (so write the $5$ as $1times 2 + 1 + 2$) , a pattern and a reason will emerge.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 27 '18 at 16:14
3
$begingroup$
Note that the resulting number has 636 digits, so it's not easy to compute even if you understand the trick and can do it 'quickly' (unless you use a computer).
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Dec 27 '18 at 16:18
20
$begingroup$
Denote the process of replacing two numbers $a,b$ by another one by $a*b equiv ab+a+b$. Show that $(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)$ and $a*b = b*a$ (i.e. the binary operation $*$ is both associative and commutative). This would prove that order is not important.
$endgroup$
– Winther
Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
2
$begingroup$
The same question has previously been asked on the Puzzling StackExchange: Ten numbers on a blackboard.
$endgroup$
– theosza
Dec 28 '18 at 7:53
1
$begingroup$
The question is phrased rather oddly. It seems that the number is fixed; so how can it have an average value?
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 29 '18 at 1:41
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
All numbers $1$ to $155$ are written on a blackboard, one time each. We randomly choose two numbers and delete them, by replacing one of them with their product plus their sum. We repeat the process until there is only one number left. What is the average value of this number?
I don't know how to approach it: For two numbers, $1$ and $2$, the only number is $1cdot 2+1+2=5$
For three numbers, $1, 2$ and $3$, we can opt to replace $1$ and $2$ with $5$ and then $3$ and $5$ with $23$, or
$1$ and $3$ with $7$ and then $2$, $7$ with $23$ or
$2$, $3$ with $11$ and $1$, $11$ with $23$
so we see that no matter which two numbers we choose, the average number remains the same. Does this lead us anywhere?
combinatorics
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
$endgroup$
All numbers $1$ to $155$ are written on a blackboard, one time each. We randomly choose two numbers and delete them, by replacing one of them with their product plus their sum. We repeat the process until there is only one number left. What is the average value of this number?
I don't know how to approach it: For two numbers, $1$ and $2$, the only number is $1cdot 2+1+2=5$
For three numbers, $1, 2$ and $3$, we can opt to replace $1$ and $2$ with $5$ and then $3$ and $5$ with $23$, or
$1$ and $3$ with $7$ and then $2$, $7$ with $23$ or
$2$, $3$ with $11$ and $1$, $11$ with $23$
so we see that no matter which two numbers we choose, the average number remains the same. Does this lead us anywhere?
combinatorics
combinatorics
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:33
Key Flex
8,56171233
8,56171233
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:07
Yousha TagorYousha Tagor
19613
19613
8
$begingroup$
You have started the problem the right way, by looking at small similar questions. Perhaps if you work out the next case, keeping track of the way you got to each number (so write the $5$ as $1times 2 + 1 + 2$) , a pattern and a reason will emerge.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 27 '18 at 16:14
3
$begingroup$
Note that the resulting number has 636 digits, so it's not easy to compute even if you understand the trick and can do it 'quickly' (unless you use a computer).
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Dec 27 '18 at 16:18
20
$begingroup$
Denote the process of replacing two numbers $a,b$ by another one by $a*b equiv ab+a+b$. Show that $(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)$ and $a*b = b*a$ (i.e. the binary operation $*$ is both associative and commutative). This would prove that order is not important.
$endgroup$
– Winther
Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
2
$begingroup$
The same question has previously been asked on the Puzzling StackExchange: Ten numbers on a blackboard.
$endgroup$
– theosza
Dec 28 '18 at 7:53
1
$begingroup$
The question is phrased rather oddly. It seems that the number is fixed; so how can it have an average value?
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 29 '18 at 1:41
|
show 2 more comments
8
$begingroup$
You have started the problem the right way, by looking at small similar questions. Perhaps if you work out the next case, keeping track of the way you got to each number (so write the $5$ as $1times 2 + 1 + 2$) , a pattern and a reason will emerge.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 27 '18 at 16:14
3
$begingroup$
Note that the resulting number has 636 digits, so it's not easy to compute even if you understand the trick and can do it 'quickly' (unless you use a computer).
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Dec 27 '18 at 16:18
20
$begingroup$
Denote the process of replacing two numbers $a,b$ by another one by $a*b equiv ab+a+b$. Show that $(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)$ and $a*b = b*a$ (i.e. the binary operation $*$ is both associative and commutative). This would prove that order is not important.
$endgroup$
– Winther
Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
2
$begingroup$
The same question has previously been asked on the Puzzling StackExchange: Ten numbers on a blackboard.
$endgroup$
– theosza
Dec 28 '18 at 7:53
1
$begingroup$
The question is phrased rather oddly. It seems that the number is fixed; so how can it have an average value?
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 29 '18 at 1:41
8
8
$begingroup$
You have started the problem the right way, by looking at small similar questions. Perhaps if you work out the next case, keeping track of the way you got to each number (so write the $5$ as $1times 2 + 1 + 2$) , a pattern and a reason will emerge.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 27 '18 at 16:14
$begingroup$
You have started the problem the right way, by looking at small similar questions. Perhaps if you work out the next case, keeping track of the way you got to each number (so write the $5$ as $1times 2 + 1 + 2$) , a pattern and a reason will emerge.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 27 '18 at 16:14
3
3
$begingroup$
Note that the resulting number has 636 digits, so it's not easy to compute even if you understand the trick and can do it 'quickly' (unless you use a computer).
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Dec 27 '18 at 16:18
$begingroup$
Note that the resulting number has 636 digits, so it's not easy to compute even if you understand the trick and can do it 'quickly' (unless you use a computer).
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Dec 27 '18 at 16:18
20
20
$begingroup$
Denote the process of replacing two numbers $a,b$ by another one by $a*b equiv ab+a+b$. Show that $(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)$ and $a*b = b*a$ (i.e. the binary operation $*$ is both associative and commutative). This would prove that order is not important.
$endgroup$
– Winther
Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
$begingroup$
Denote the process of replacing two numbers $a,b$ by another one by $a*b equiv ab+a+b$. Show that $(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)$ and $a*b = b*a$ (i.e. the binary operation $*$ is both associative and commutative). This would prove that order is not important.
$endgroup$
– Winther
Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
2
2
$begingroup$
The same question has previously been asked on the Puzzling StackExchange: Ten numbers on a blackboard.
$endgroup$
– theosza
Dec 28 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
The same question has previously been asked on the Puzzling StackExchange: Ten numbers on a blackboard.
$endgroup$
– theosza
Dec 28 '18 at 7:53
1
1
$begingroup$
The question is phrased rather oddly. It seems that the number is fixed; so how can it have an average value?
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 29 '18 at 1:41
$begingroup$
The question is phrased rather oddly. It seems that the number is fixed; so how can it have an average value?
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 29 '18 at 1:41
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Claim: if $a_1,...,a_n$ are the $n$ numbers on the board then after n steps we shall be left with $(1+a_1)...(1+a_n)-1$.
Proof: induct on $n$. Case $n=1$ is true, so assume the proposition holds for a fixed $n$ and any $a_1$,...$a_n$. Consider now $n+1$ numbers $a_1$,...,$a_{n+1}$. Suppose that at the first step we choose $a_1$ and $a_2$. We will be left with $ n$ numbers $b_1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2$, $b_2=a_3$,...,$b_n=a_{n+1}$, so by the induction hypothesis at the end we will be left with $(b_1+1)...(b_n+1)-1=(a_1+1)...(a_{n+1}+1)-1$ as needed, because $b_1+1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2+1=(a_1+1)(a_2+1)$
Where did I get the idea of the proof from? I guess from the n=2 case: for $a_1,a_2$ you are left with $a_1+a_2+a_1a_2=(1+a_1)(1+a_2)-1$ and I also noted this formula generalises for $n=3$
So in your case we will be left with $156!-1=1times 2times...times 156 -1$
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
2
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another way to think of Sorin's observation, without appealing to induction explicitly:
Suppose your original numbers (both the original 155 numbers and later results) are written in white chalk. Now above each white number write that number plus one, in red chalk. Write new red companions to each new white number, and erase the red numbers when their white partners go away.
When we erase $x$ and $y$ and write $x+y+xy$, the new red number is $x+y+xy+1=(x+1)(y+1)$, exactly the product of the two red companions we're erasing.
So we can reformulate the entire game as:
Write in red the numbers from $2$ to $156$. Keep erasing two numbers and writing their product instead. At the end when you have one red number left, subtract one and write the result in white.
Since the order of factors is immaterial, the result must be $2cdot 3cdots 156-1$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
4
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054103%2fnumbers-on-blackboard%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Claim: if $a_1,...,a_n$ are the $n$ numbers on the board then after n steps we shall be left with $(1+a_1)...(1+a_n)-1$.
Proof: induct on $n$. Case $n=1$ is true, so assume the proposition holds for a fixed $n$ and any $a_1$,...$a_n$. Consider now $n+1$ numbers $a_1$,...,$a_{n+1}$. Suppose that at the first step we choose $a_1$ and $a_2$. We will be left with $ n$ numbers $b_1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2$, $b_2=a_3$,...,$b_n=a_{n+1}$, so by the induction hypothesis at the end we will be left with $(b_1+1)...(b_n+1)-1=(a_1+1)...(a_{n+1}+1)-1$ as needed, because $b_1+1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2+1=(a_1+1)(a_2+1)$
Where did I get the idea of the proof from? I guess from the n=2 case: for $a_1,a_2$ you are left with $a_1+a_2+a_1a_2=(1+a_1)(1+a_2)-1$ and I also noted this formula generalises for $n=3$
So in your case we will be left with $156!-1=1times 2times...times 156 -1$
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
2
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Claim: if $a_1,...,a_n$ are the $n$ numbers on the board then after n steps we shall be left with $(1+a_1)...(1+a_n)-1$.
Proof: induct on $n$. Case $n=1$ is true, so assume the proposition holds for a fixed $n$ and any $a_1$,...$a_n$. Consider now $n+1$ numbers $a_1$,...,$a_{n+1}$. Suppose that at the first step we choose $a_1$ and $a_2$. We will be left with $ n$ numbers $b_1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2$, $b_2=a_3$,...,$b_n=a_{n+1}$, so by the induction hypothesis at the end we will be left with $(b_1+1)...(b_n+1)-1=(a_1+1)...(a_{n+1}+1)-1$ as needed, because $b_1+1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2+1=(a_1+1)(a_2+1)$
Where did I get the idea of the proof from? I guess from the n=2 case: for $a_1,a_2$ you are left with $a_1+a_2+a_1a_2=(1+a_1)(1+a_2)-1$ and I also noted this formula generalises for $n=3$
So in your case we will be left with $156!-1=1times 2times...times 156 -1$
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
2
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Claim: if $a_1,...,a_n$ are the $n$ numbers on the board then after n steps we shall be left with $(1+a_1)...(1+a_n)-1$.
Proof: induct on $n$. Case $n=1$ is true, so assume the proposition holds for a fixed $n$ and any $a_1$,...$a_n$. Consider now $n+1$ numbers $a_1$,...,$a_{n+1}$. Suppose that at the first step we choose $a_1$ and $a_2$. We will be left with $ n$ numbers $b_1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2$, $b_2=a_3$,...,$b_n=a_{n+1}$, so by the induction hypothesis at the end we will be left with $(b_1+1)...(b_n+1)-1=(a_1+1)...(a_{n+1}+1)-1$ as needed, because $b_1+1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2+1=(a_1+1)(a_2+1)$
Where did I get the idea of the proof from? I guess from the n=2 case: for $a_1,a_2$ you are left with $a_1+a_2+a_1a_2=(1+a_1)(1+a_2)-1$ and I also noted this formula generalises for $n=3$
So in your case we will be left with $156!-1=1times 2times...times 156 -1$
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
$endgroup$
Claim: if $a_1,...,a_n$ are the $n$ numbers on the board then after n steps we shall be left with $(1+a_1)...(1+a_n)-1$.
Proof: induct on $n$. Case $n=1$ is true, so assume the proposition holds for a fixed $n$ and any $a_1$,...$a_n$. Consider now $n+1$ numbers $a_1$,...,$a_{n+1}$. Suppose that at the first step we choose $a_1$ and $a_2$. We will be left with $ n$ numbers $b_1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2$, $b_2=a_3$,...,$b_n=a_{n+1}$, so by the induction hypothesis at the end we will be left with $(b_1+1)...(b_n+1)-1=(a_1+1)...(a_{n+1}+1)-1$ as needed, because $b_1+1=a_1+a_2+a_1a_2+1=(a_1+1)(a_2+1)$
Where did I get the idea of the proof from? I guess from the n=2 case: for $a_1,a_2$ you are left with $a_1+a_2+a_1a_2=(1+a_1)(1+a_2)-1$ and I also noted this formula generalises for $n=3$
So in your case we will be left with $156!-1=1times 2times...times 156 -1$
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
edited Dec 27 '18 at 16:29
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
Sorin TircSorin Tirc
1,875213
1,875213
2
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
2
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
2
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
2
2
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
$begingroup$
Superb, really smart proof $+1$!
$endgroup$
– Prakhar Nagpal
Dec 27 '18 at 16:28
2
2
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
$begingroup$
A really good one, +1
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 27 '18 at 16:35
2
2
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Quite impressive! Just so that it doesn't mislead anyone, because the lowest number is $1$ shouldn't the result equal to: $$2cdot 3cdot dots cdot 156-1=156!-1?$$ Of course this doesn't change anything.
$endgroup$
– Zacky
Dec 27 '18 at 16:38
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
Yes, sure @Zacky ;) the 1 was added by me just to respect the formula for the factorial
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:50
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@Zacky adding or removing a factor of $1$ only serves for clarification, but I agree that it better frames how we got the numbers.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another way to think of Sorin's observation, without appealing to induction explicitly:
Suppose your original numbers (both the original 155 numbers and later results) are written in white chalk. Now above each white number write that number plus one, in red chalk. Write new red companions to each new white number, and erase the red numbers when their white partners go away.
When we erase $x$ and $y$ and write $x+y+xy$, the new red number is $x+y+xy+1=(x+1)(y+1)$, exactly the product of the two red companions we're erasing.
So we can reformulate the entire game as:
Write in red the numbers from $2$ to $156$. Keep erasing two numbers and writing their product instead. At the end when you have one red number left, subtract one and write the result in white.
Since the order of factors is immaterial, the result must be $2cdot 3cdots 156-1$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
4
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another way to think of Sorin's observation, without appealing to induction explicitly:
Suppose your original numbers (both the original 155 numbers and later results) are written in white chalk. Now above each white number write that number plus one, in red chalk. Write new red companions to each new white number, and erase the red numbers when their white partners go away.
When we erase $x$ and $y$ and write $x+y+xy$, the new red number is $x+y+xy+1=(x+1)(y+1)$, exactly the product of the two red companions we're erasing.
So we can reformulate the entire game as:
Write in red the numbers from $2$ to $156$. Keep erasing two numbers and writing their product instead. At the end when you have one red number left, subtract one and write the result in white.
Since the order of factors is immaterial, the result must be $2cdot 3cdots 156-1$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
4
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another way to think of Sorin's observation, without appealing to induction explicitly:
Suppose your original numbers (both the original 155 numbers and later results) are written in white chalk. Now above each white number write that number plus one, in red chalk. Write new red companions to each new white number, and erase the red numbers when their white partners go away.
When we erase $x$ and $y$ and write $x+y+xy$, the new red number is $x+y+xy+1=(x+1)(y+1)$, exactly the product of the two red companions we're erasing.
So we can reformulate the entire game as:
Write in red the numbers from $2$ to $156$. Keep erasing two numbers and writing their product instead. At the end when you have one red number left, subtract one and write the result in white.
Since the order of factors is immaterial, the result must be $2cdot 3cdots 156-1$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
$endgroup$
Another way to think of Sorin's observation, without appealing to induction explicitly:
Suppose your original numbers (both the original 155 numbers and later results) are written in white chalk. Now above each white number write that number plus one, in red chalk. Write new red companions to each new white number, and erase the red numbers when their white partners go away.
When we erase $x$ and $y$ and write $x+y+xy$, the new red number is $x+y+xy+1=(x+1)(y+1)$, exactly the product of the two red companions we're erasing.
So we can reformulate the entire game as:
Write in red the numbers from $2$ to $156$. Keep erasing two numbers and writing their product instead. At the end when you have one red number left, subtract one and write the result in white.
Since the order of factors is immaterial, the result must be $2cdot 3cdots 156-1$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
edited Dec 27 '18 at 17:09
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:44
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
243k17312556
243k17312556
2
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
4
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
4
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
2
2
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Great point! I guess this proof belongs to one of those cases in which induction hides a little how obvious the result is.
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 16:53
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
Nice. I hate it when I know something but can't put it into words.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Dec 28 '18 at 2:17
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
$begingroup$
@SorinTirc: Or, you can think of such proofs as falling into the category of induction proofs that use a loop invariant. Naturally, the loop invariant has one less quantifier than the property under induction, so it feels and looks cleaner. =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
Dec 28 '18 at 3:35
4
4
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
It’s maybe worth also noting that Henning Makholm’s proof is setting up an isomorphism between ($mathbb{R},•$) and ($mathbb{R}, *$) where $a*b=a+b+ab$ and the isomorphism is given by $f(x)=x-1$
$endgroup$
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 28 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
and here I was expecting that the values could be different depending on the order. Very well written answer. +1
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Dec 29 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054103%2fnumbers-on-blackboard%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
$begingroup$
You have started the problem the right way, by looking at small similar questions. Perhaps if you work out the next case, keeping track of the way you got to each number (so write the $5$ as $1times 2 + 1 + 2$) , a pattern and a reason will emerge.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Dec 27 '18 at 16:14
3
$begingroup$
Note that the resulting number has 636 digits, so it's not easy to compute even if you understand the trick and can do it 'quickly' (unless you use a computer).
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Dec 27 '18 at 16:18
20
$begingroup$
Denote the process of replacing two numbers $a,b$ by another one by $a*b equiv ab+a+b$. Show that $(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)$ and $a*b = b*a$ (i.e. the binary operation $*$ is both associative and commutative). This would prove that order is not important.
$endgroup$
– Winther
Dec 27 '18 at 16:22
2
$begingroup$
The same question has previously been asked on the Puzzling StackExchange: Ten numbers on a blackboard.
$endgroup$
– theosza
Dec 28 '18 at 7:53
1
$begingroup$
The question is phrased rather oddly. It seems that the number is fixed; so how can it have an average value?
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 29 '18 at 1:41