Complete the sequence

I didn't understand most of that, but it seems to me that it could be:

111222333

Normally, sequence puzzles are fairly well defined, such that a valid "wrong" answer is impossible. I would hazard a guess that Override's answer is "wrong".

This is normally a symptom of odd-one-out puzzles, which I hate for that very reason, and don't understand why they are found on so many IQ tests.

Quote:

Admittedly, this sequence is obscure, but should only have one set of congruent answers. Post the minimal possible solution from that set (as in: of two members of one set, for instance 3/3 and 6/6, 6/6 is smaller than 3/3, although not minimal in the set in this case).

I don't understand how 6/6 is "smaller" than 3/3 when both represent the same value, and especially since 6 > 3.

Quote:

Original post by kSquared Quote: Admittedly, this sequence is obscure, but should only have one set of congruent answers. Post the minimal possible solution from that set (as in: of two members of one set, for instance 3/3 and 6/6, 6/6 is smaller than 3/3, although not minimal in the set in this case). I don't understand how 6/6 is "smaller" than 3/3 when both represent the same value, and especially since 6 > 3.

While it's true that 6 > 3, you need to pay attention to the denominators. ie. 1/6 is smaller than 1/3. I don't understand the number sequence above however.

Quote:

Original post by Crispy I made this up in lecture today - there are two versions to this. I'm posting the harder version with a clue that should remove any dualities or multiple solutions. 1 1 1 2 _ _ 3 _ _ The clue: 1 < 1 < 1

Your clue makes no sense at all. But I will take a shot :

1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 9 (1 * 1 = 1 => 2 * 2 = 4 => 3 * 3 = 9)

George2 is close to the solution, but not 100% correct. Hint: see the clue in the OP one more time...

1 1 1 2 4 2 3 9 3

Or maybe :

1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 27 (powers instead of multiplications)

Still don't get the clue.

I was thinking it could be:

1 1 1 2 4 8 3 9 27

(1**1 1**2 1**3 2**1 2**2 2**3 3**1 3**2 3**3)

You should post more of the sequence, because at the moment there are thousands of possible correct answers and it's just a guessing game.

A better clue might help too. One is smaller than one is smaller than one does not make sense.

Quote:

Your clue makes no sense at all. But I will take a shot : 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 9 (1 * 1 = 1 => 2 * 2 = 4 => 3 * 3 = 9)

My 'guess' is:

1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1

1 1 1 2 4 2 3 9 3

or

1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3

???

1 1 1 2 _ _ 3 _ _

1*1=1 2*1=2 3*1=3 ==>

1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3


?????

Quote:

Original post by Jimmy Valavanis 1 1 1 2 _ _ 3 _ _ 1*1=1 2*1=2 3*1=3 ==> 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 ?????

Quote:

Original post by Eleusive 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 ?????

[grin]

So Crispy...you plan on telling us the answer?

This whole exercise appears utterly pointless. When someone gets the answer, this had better be good, and I doubt it will, since whenever one of these has happened before the answer was just made hopelessly obscure by how ill-defined the problem was.

Oh, and nobody's done 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 yet, or 1 1 1 2 4 8 3 9 27.

Maybe so, but I would still like to see the "answer" and explanation.

111211321?

Quote:

Original post by dorix I was thinking it could be: 1 1 1 2 4 8 3 9 27 (1**1 1**2 1**3 2**1 2**2 2**3 3**1 3**2 3**3)

Your solution is correct. And should be the only correct one if you read my original post word-for-word and pay attention to every detail.

Quote:

Original post by Crispy Quote: Original post by dorix I was thinking it could be: 1 1 1 2 4 8 3 9 27 (1**1 1**2 1**3 2**1 2**2 2**3 3**1 3**2 3**3) Your solution is correct. And should be the only correct one if you read my original post word-for-word and pay attention to every detail.

Cool, but I still don't understand how the original clues eliminate any of the other choices given -- or suggest this one over any others. I pretty much just pulled that out of a hat.

So how can 1 < 1 < 1 ever be true?

Quote:

Original post by dorix So how can 1 < 1 < 1 ever be true?

Do not view the 1's as numbers, but rather as different instances of members from the same set.

Let's say the relationship between two members of a set is: n_j < n_j+1, where n_jk = n^jk.

In human terms this means that x < y if x = n^k and y = n^k+m, where m > 0.

Now imagine if n = 1.

Finally, do not think that 1 < 1, but think that the expression behind one 1 is less than the expression behind the other 1: 1¹ < 1² < 1³.

This isn't a problem from the realm of mathematics, so don't treat it as one, but rather a problem from the real of set theory. Minimization is a set theory function that finds the smallest possible solution to a problem - ergo, for instance, given that the set is held together by the relation that q < r, and that the set only contains letters, the minimized expression of the relation is b < a, not q < r.

Does that make any sense (read: did I explain that right because I could be wrong in my explanation?)?