FA+
Shop
Mathamatician
14 years ago
General
Me and my friend were derping around in class today with one of the calculators. We ended up punching in a random sequence of 4 numbers which turned out to be 9696. I then raised this to the power of random crap, which turned out to be 9696 ^ 96/9-6*96+69/96 with the resulting answer coming out to 0.
We were surprised at the least, so we checked out 8585 and 7474 as well, using the rule (first 2 digits/highest digit-lowest digit*first 2 digits+the opposite of the last 2 digits/the first 2 digits) with a resulting answer of 0 as well.
Then I thought about trying it with 1234 and 0123. These didnt work, so I made the statement that it would not work with consecutive numbers. That was disproved when I got it to work with the number 6789. I worked with 1, but I have not been able to do work with 0 just yet, but I drew a conclusion that the presence of 1 stopped it from equaling 0. I then worked it out but found that my hypothesis was incorrect, as I tried it with the number 9691 with it working out.
I then decided to take it a bit farther by trying 96969696 to see if it would work. It worked when I used the equation and divided it by 2 like so:
96969696 ^ (96/9-6*96+69/96)/2
This came with an answer of 0, which proved that it could work with an 8 digit number with only 2 different digits (9 and 6). I then decided to try 8 completely different numbers (98765432) and see if it would work. I serperated it into 2 groups of 4, the results being 9876 and 5432 for easy records. The math came out with a non 0
We were messing around with more numbers, where I tried doing 1111, with it coming out not working. I them tried only three ones in the sequence 1113 which also failed. I tried 1119 to see if a large number would work and it still failed. I then tried the same with two ones, such as 1134 and 1196, which did not work either.
I then concluded that 2 or more ones would not work in the equation. My friend raised the question that maytbe it was only consecutive ones that didnt work, so we tried 1431, still disproving that. We concluded that a 4 sequence number would not work with 2 or more ones.
I then dicided to add this into the 8 number sequence. I concluded, that 4 ones would not make it work, which surprised me when it came out with an answer of 0. I then came up with the conclusion (which I have not tested yet) that if we were to add another 1 so that there were 5 (such as 16118211) would make the total not come out to 0. It will be tested when I get a chance, so that means theres going to be a part 3 up here..
We were surprised at the least, so we checked out 8585 and 7474 as well, using the rule (first 2 digits/highest digit-lowest digit*first 2 digits+the opposite of the last 2 digits/the first 2 digits) with a resulting answer of 0 as well.
Then I thought about trying it with 1234 and 0123. These didnt work, so I made the statement that it would not work with consecutive numbers. That was disproved when I got it to work with the number 6789. I worked with 1, but I have not been able to do work with 0 just yet, but I drew a conclusion that the presence of 1 stopped it from equaling 0. I then worked it out but found that my hypothesis was incorrect, as I tried it with the number 9691 with it working out.
I then decided to take it a bit farther by trying 96969696 to see if it would work. It worked when I used the equation and divided it by 2 like so:
96969696 ^ (96/9-6*96+69/96)/2
This came with an answer of 0, which proved that it could work with an 8 digit number with only 2 different digits (9 and 6). I then decided to try 8 completely different numbers (98765432) and see if it would work. I serperated it into 2 groups of 4, the results being 9876 and 5432 for easy records. The math came out with a non 0
We were messing around with more numbers, where I tried doing 1111, with it coming out not working. I them tried only three ones in the sequence 1113 which also failed. I tried 1119 to see if a large number would work and it still failed. I then tried the same with two ones, such as 1134 and 1196, which did not work either.
I then concluded that 2 or more ones would not work in the equation. My friend raised the question that maytbe it was only consecutive ones that didnt work, so we tried 1431, still disproving that. We concluded that a 4 sequence number would not work with 2 or more ones.
I then dicided to add this into the 8 number sequence. I concluded, that 4 ones would not make it work, which surprised me when it came out with an answer of 0. I then came up with the conclusion (which I have not tested yet) that if we were to add another 1 so that there were 5 (such as 16118211) would make the total not come out to 0. It will be tested when I get a chance, so that means theres going to be a part 3 up here..
