Four 4s ongoing challange!

[akahenaton]

can we get numbers like 108.25? or do then not count because they're not whole numbers?

[Dave]

can we get numbers like 108.25? or do then not count because they're not whole numbers?

 

We're only concerned with whole numbers, so no

[akahenaton]

can i ask y we can only hav hole numbers?

[Xyph]

Otherwise it would get a bit silly, don't you think?

 

 

[math]arccos(sin(\tfrac{4}{4})) + 4! - 4 = 109[/math]

 

[math]arcsin(\tfrac{4}{4}) + 4! - 4 = 110[/math]

 

[math]arccos(sin(\tfrac{4}{4})) + 4! - \sqrt{4} = 111[/math]

 

[math]arcsin(\tfrac{4}{4}) + 4! - \sqrt{4} = 112[/math]

[ecoli]

can i ask y we can only hav hole numbers?

apparently you can.

 

 

PS - does that latex error mean you got 109, xylph?

mine is

 

[math] cos^{-1}(sin(-4!)) - (\tfrac{4! - 4}{4}) = 109 [/math]

[The Thing]

Xyph's got till 112. Ecoli you have a LaTeX Error too.

[math]

sin^{-1}(cos(4!-\sqrt{4}))+tan^{-1}(\frac{4}{4})=113

[/math]

[ecoli]

Xyph's got till 112. Ecoli you have a LaTeX Error too.

yeah, I know. I can't figure out why

 

edit: there it goes

[The Thing]

Check your syntax.

 

Edit: What a waste of a post, so I'll post 114:

[math]

sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{\sqrt{4}}))+4!+\sqrt{4}=114

[/math]

And 115:

[math]

sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{4}))+4!+\sqrt{4}=115

[/math]

And 116 - no trig!

[math]

\frac{4!\sqrt{4}}{.4}-4=116

[/math]

[ecoli]

Check your syntax.

What a waste of a post' date=' so I'll post 114:

edit:arrg, wrong math[/quote']

 

I can get 114 with 3 numbers...I'll keep working on it, though

[ecoli]

[math]

sin^{-1}(cos(4!-4))+tan^{-1}(\frac{4}{4})=115

[/math]

 

[math]

cos^{-1}(sin(\sqrt{4}))+ (4!+\sqrt{4} +\sqrt{4}) = 116

[/math]

[The Thing]

Ecoli, a bit too late =) on 113, 114, 115, and 116. The Thing strikes again!

lol.

[ecoli]

Check your syntax.

 

Edit: What a waste of a post' date=' so I'll post 114:

[math']

sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{\sqrt{4}}))+4!+\sqrt{4}=114

[/math]

And 115:

[math]

sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{4}))+4!+\sqrt{4}=115

[/math]

And 116 - no trig!

[math]

\frac{4!\sqrt{4}}{.4}-4=116

[/math]

 

I'm pretty sure I posted 115 and 116 before you!

 

I had to go back and edit 116, so the edit times can't prove anything!

[ecoli]

[math]

sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{4}))+4!+4=117

[/math]

[The Thing]

Impossible!

I am positive that there were no other posts after mine when I edited, but oh well, moving on:

Edit: Ecoli beat me to it, dang.

And:

[math]

antilog(\sqrt{4})+4*4+\sqrt{4}=118

[/math]

[Dave]

Guys, I'd like to remind you about the rule I've imposed on this thread. If you're going to post, then you must wait for at least 3 posts after your last one. I'll start deleting ones that don't obey that from now on, because this thread is just prime for posting unnecessary stuff

[cosine]

sin^-1[cos(sqrt(4))] + 4! + 4 + F_4 = 119

 

where F_n is the nth Fibonacci number.

 

(4 + 4/4)*4! = 120

 

4^F_4 - sqrt(4)*F_4 = 121

 

sin^-1[cos(sqrt(4))] + 4! + sqrt(4)*F_4 = 122

 

(4 + 4/4)! + F_4 = 123

 

does that 3 post rule also apply to posts that are answers?

 

(4 + 4/4)! + 4 = 124

 

4^F_4 - F_(sqrt(4)*sqrt(4)) = 125

 

4^F_4 - 4/sqrt(4) = 126

 

4^F_4 - 4/4 = 127

 

(sqrt(4)*sqrt(4))^F_(sqrt(4)*sqrt(4)) = 128

 

4^F_4 + 4/4 = 129

4^F_4 + 4/sqrt(4) = 130

(sqrt(4)*sqrt(4))^F_4 + F_4 = 131

(sqrt(4)*sqrt(4))^F_4 + 4 = 132

4^F_4 + sqrt(4) + F_4 = 133

4^F_4 + sqrt(4)*F_4 = 134

 

4^F_4 + 4 + F_4 = 135

4^F_4 + 4 + 4 = 136

4^F_4 + (F_4)*F_4 = 137

sqrt(4) * [F_4 * 4! - F_4] = 138

 

F_(F_4 * 4) - sqrt(4) - F_4 = 139

F_(F_4 * 4) - sqrt(4)*sqrt(4) = 140

F_(F_4 * 4) - F_(sqrt(4) + sqrt(4)) = 141

F_(F_4 * 4) - 4/sqrt(4) = 142

 

...yeah, its kinda late, I'll chill for a bit. Goodnight!

[ashennell]

I think that is a bit rude really. Im going to call it quits to be honest.

[The Thing]

WHAT?

What in the world is F_4? If it is the SUM of the Fibonacci numbers, as I believe, than some of the numbers cosine's done up there is definitely wrong.

So elaborate, what IN THE WORLD is F_4?

If it is simply, 1, 1, 2, 3, and the 3 is F_4, then again some of them are wrong. I can't think of how 4^3 + 4/4 can equal 129. Indeed, 4^any whole number don't make 128. And last time I checked, the Fibonacci numbers did NOT go into decimals in the first four.

[ashennell]

I didn't check cosines answers but they do seem ot be wrong like you say. I assume that F_4 = 3 - this seems like the only reasonable interpretation. If it was the sum of the first 4 numbers then I think it would be unallowable anyway as that is not a standard function. Are the Fibonacci numbers even allowed?

 

I still think it is a bit rude just posting a long list of answers. I'm sure that a couple of the other guys who have been posting could have sped off into the distance if they wanted.

 

if F_4 is not allowd then we might as well jsut carry on form 119

 

if f_4=3 is allowed then we could include all of consines anwers up to the first one that is wrong.

 

FRom OP:

4. The answers in this thread will start with trying to find an answer resulting in 1, then the next person must find a solution resulting in 2, the next person 3, and so on.

 

so we should post one at a time really. posting 2 or 3 is a bit cheeky

[Xyph]

121, 122, then 125 - 137 are all wrong, and seem to have been done under the impression that [math]4^{3} = 128[/math].

 

Using sequences like that probably shouldn't be allowed, though. It's the same sort of thing as using constants. Might as well come up with sequences of your own and make sure [math]x_{4}[/math] equals whatever number you need.

 

I agree posting one at a time is probably a better idea, although admittedly I've been guilty of posting quite a few at times.

[cosine]

Darn, I just wrote a long post and accidentily went back a page, and the post cleared. I have a few important points to say.

 

1) I'm sorry about the long list of numbers. I'm not here to be a jerk. I was hoping that getting through more numbers would get us to numbers in which new techniques would need to be found.

 

2) God knows what I was thinking last night in my tired stupor that 4^3 = 128. So that eliminates many of my answers. I'm sure they could be easily found by people here smarter than me.

 

3) F_n questionable? Its a mathematically defined function. Should the rules only allow continuous functions?

 

4) I'd like to say again I apologize for offendable behavior, thats not my intention whatsoever. That said, it can't help for me to linger on it. So I'll move on.

 

5) Since we are questioning functions, we need a lot more rigourous definition of what is acceptable. For instance, sqrt(x) is 4^(1/2) so there is an implied 1 and 2. Is cuberoot acceptable? Quadroot? Quintroot? Etc.

[Ducky Havok]

Okay,

1. Its okay that you wanted to get far ahead, but the whole point was to go a little at a time so everyone had a chance to have fun at it.

2. You could always go back and edit your post and get rid of those. God knows all of us have made one stupid error at one point or another so don't feel to bad about it.

3. I think its questionable because its not a very standard or commonly used function, kind of like the greatest integer function. If we used that it'd be easier to do a lot of the numbers, but it takes away the fun.

4. Maybe you should just delete the majority of your post (since most are wrong due to thinking 4^3=128 anyway), and when we get to a number you know jump on it (like 120 or 124). We all really should be going 1 at a time, but alas we all (including myself) have fallen pray to doing 2 or 3 at once. It's okay though, no need to keep apologizing, we understand that you weren't trying to be offensive in any way.

5. I think the only reason the squareroot of a number could be allowed is because the radical sign which is used has no other numbers included. If you wanted to take the cuberoot of a number then you'd have to include a 3 by the radical sign which would be cheating, but maybe if you said something like (4-4/4)th root, but that still may be pushing it.

 

Overall I'm giving up altogether though. It was fun for a while but it lost its excitement. Oh well, have fun.

[ashennell]

I think that there are two was of constraining this task -

 

1. Restrict the possible functions from the outset, limit it right down to basic operators. This would make the task harder but the resulting solutions would probably look a lot more 'foury' - like the list moosie posted a while back.

 

2. Allow people to use any standard, commonly used, maths function. Sure it will be easier at the beginning but I'm pretty sure that it will get harder and harder as the numbers go up.

 

Personally, I favour the second option - clearly, it's not up to to me, but I think it will make it more intersting in the long run. I think F_4 is no more dodgy than using 0.4 disguised as .4. Plus, when it does get really difficult (assuming it will) there are a lot more possibilities that need to be tried. Having a restricted repertoire will only curtail creative solutions.

 

Where is the challenger ot an admin to resolve this issue?

 

Hello cosine, welcome to scienceforums. sorry I was a bit picky with you before - im sure that if I was normal person these things would not matter so much

[The Thing]

@ Cosine

Ah, I have a weird habit of using all caps on certain words. I apologize, but I must say, I was a witness of your 10 consecutive posts (each containing about 5 answers) and was a bit overwhelmed.

 

@ Everyone

I agree that some functions should be made possible, but some shouldn't. I personally feel that all the functions you can find on a scientific calculator in Windows are acceptable.

The thread has been idle for some time now (relatively of course, it has only been what, about a day? But compared to before when within the hour another answer usually pops up). I might take a leaf out of Ducky's book and leave too, but haven't decided yet. Let's see how this thread goes. It was pretty fun the first 90, but from there it was downhill.

[cosine]

@ Cosine

Ah' date=' I have a weird habit of using all caps on certain words. I apologize, but I must say, I was a witness of your 10 consecutive posts (each containing about 5 answers) and was a bit overwhelmed.

 

@ Everyone

I agree that some functions should be made possible, but some shouldn't. I personally feel that all the functions you can find on a scientific calculator in Windows are acceptable.

The thread has been idle for some time now (relatively of course, it has only been what, about a day? But compared to before when within the hour another answer usually pops up). I might take a leaf out of Ducky's book and leave too, but haven't decided yet. Let's see how this thread goes. It was pretty fun the first 90, but from there it was downhill.[/quote']

 

Although I'm talking from the persepctive of someone just joining, it seems like the more interesting value of the game is not just getting numbers, but the methods emplyed to get them. Thats why it seems worth it to go until you hit a block. Then try to find a new technique (or combine old techniques in different ways).