Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Posers and Puzzles

Posers and Puzzles

  1. 29 Jul '04 18:29
    What number comes next in this sequence:

    1 4 11 20 31 44 ???

    -Ray.
  2. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    30 Jul '04 05:06
    Originally posted by rgoudie
    What number comes next in this sequence:

    1 4 11 20 31 44 ???

    -Ray.
    Add 15 to 44 for 59.
  3. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    30 Jul '04 05:15
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Add 15 to 44 for 59.
    I also get 536. As Wittgenstein pointed out (talking about IQ tests, I believe), a puzzle in this format has an infinite number of answers, each with logic to ack them up.

    In particular, I could construct a polynomial whose output at consecutive integers is any sequence you give me, though in practice the algebra could get arbitrarily involved.
  4. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    30 Jul '04 05:20
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    I also get 536. As Wittgenstein pointed out (talking about IQ tests, I believe), a puzzle in this format has an infinite number of answers, each with logic to ack them up.

    In particular, I could construct a polynomial whose output at consecutive integers is any sequence you give me, though in practice the algebra could get arbitrarily involved.
    Was he talking about IQ in particular? I don't have a copy of Philosophical Investigations handy (it's propping up a table somewhere, I'm sure), but I thought he was talking about rule-following in general, and he used the example of adding by two. He imagines that the person who was doing the adding suddenly switched after he reached one thousand, and seems to think that for any rule there are an infinite number of mutually exclusive applications of the rule consistent with any formulation of that rule.
  5. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    30 Jul '04 05:24
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Was he talking about IQ in particular? I don't have a copy of Philosophical Investigations handy (it's propping up a table somewhere, I'm sure), but I thought he was talking about rule-following in general, and he used the example of adding by two. He imagines that the person who was doing the adding suddenly switched after he reached one thousand, and se ...[text shortened]... r of mutually exclusive applications of the rule consistent with any formulation of that rule.
    To be honest, I didn't read the quote--the place I saw it said something to the effect of ''This kind of thing pops up in IQ tests, but Wittgenstein said...''. I likely overlapped the contexts.

    Your citation is almost certainly more accurate, since I've never read PI, and it even seems to make sense.
  6. 30 Jul '04 08:42
    It's 41. Two series of numbers 1st series +10 second series +N-2 (+16 + 14 etc).

    Remember an IQ test is many questions under a time limit with limited cultural or educational bias, therefore, an IQ test can't expect you to work with polynomials etc.

    Zyadk
  7. 30 Jul '04 13:28
    You guys may be correct when you state that there are other possible solutions that solve the series. Nobody has come up with the particular rule that I was looking for. Let me extend the series to see what happens:

    1 4 11 20 31 44 61 80 121 ...

    -Ray.
  8. 31 Jul '04 16:55
    1 4 11 20 31 44 61 80 121 144 171 220 ???

    -Ray.
  9. 02 Aug '04 19:26
    On what do you base your assumptions?

    -Ray.
  10. Standard member psychopath42
    Green Slime
    03 Aug '04 02:50
    Originally posted by rgoudie
    1 4 11 20 31 44 61 80 121 144 171 220 ???

    -Ray.
    my guess is 251... but shouldn't 80 be 100?
  11. Standard member FatElvis
    mmm.....burgers
    03 Aug '04 13:03
    291 ?????
  12. 03 Aug '04 14:45
    Originally posted by psychopath42
    my guess is 251... but shouldn't 80 be 100?
    No, the sequence is correct as is.

    -Ray.
  13. 03 Aug '04 14:46
    Originally posted by FatElvis
    291 ?????
    Sorry, but that is incorrect for this sequence.

    -Ray.
  14. Standard member psychopath42
    Green Slime
    03 Aug '04 15:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rgoudie
    No, the sequence is correct as is.

    -Ray.
    it is?



    so it's not squares represented in base 8? that was my guess...
  15. Standard member FatElvis
    mmm.....burgers
    03 Aug '04 16:10
    271 ?? - based on looking at the difference of every 4th number and having a wild guess.