Thread has been deleted
Last comment
MATH GAME [SMART ONLY]
 | 
Italy KezaijinDZN 
guys you have to guess my rule i used to make this sequence of numbers: 2 4 16 256 the rule i'm using is NOT: x^2 it means it's NOT: 2^2=4 4^2=16 16^2=256
2020-07-08 23:53
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
Ok.
2020-07-08 23:54
#3
 | 
Italy KezaijinDZN
useless reply, reported
2020-07-08 23:56
#4
 | 
India samsnow
Useless thread, reported
2020-07-08 23:57
#7
 | 
Italy KezaijinDZN
it's a game/quiz thread. i don't find anything useless about that.
2020-07-09 00:03
#13
 | 
CIS cardison
why are u call ur own thread useless ?
2020-07-09 00:01
edit
2020-07-09 00:03
#28
OK | 
Peru TheJuan
0/8
2020-07-09 00:13
#2
 | 
Italy KezaijinDZN
you can suggest a number which comes next to 256, and i'll tell you if it follows my rule or not
2020-07-08 23:55
2 x 2 = 4 4 x 4 = 16 16 x 16 = 256 256 x 128 = 32768
2020-07-08 23:58
#9
 | 
Italy KezaijinDZN
this is not my rule, i said it. but the number you found follows my rule
2020-07-08 23:59
idk can you reply to my comment when you post your rule? I'm curious
2020-07-09 00:06
sure!
2020-07-09 00:06
#52
2020-07-09 00:58
HOW BRAINDEAD ARE U ?
2020-07-09 12:52
#6
 | 
India samsnow
942
2020-07-08 23:58
#10
 | 
India samsnow
or 2 ^ 16 = 65536
2020-07-09 00:00
follows my rule, but you have to guess what's my rule
2020-07-09 00:02
#16
 | 
India samsnow
how do both of them follow your rule?
2020-07-09 00:03
#18
 | 
India samsnow
Unless your rule is making up random numbers
2020-07-09 00:03
it's not my rule
2020-07-09 00:04
#39
 | 
Belgium zthoui
lol it is, just accept it
2020-07-09 00:28
#52
2020-07-09 00:58
it does
2020-07-09 00:05
follows my rule, but you have to guess what's my rule
2020-07-09 00:00
#15
 | 
India samsnow
The reply contains special characters that are not allowed
2020-07-09 00:02
942
2020-07-08 23:59
#11
2020-07-09 00:00
Useless thread, reported.
2020-07-09 00:05
funny
2020-07-09 00:08
Not funny, I reported you for illegal actions.
2020-07-09 11:18
#25
 | 
United States nenemehta
your rule is 2^x starting. with 1 where x is multiplied by 2. IE: 2^1 =2 || 2^(1*2)=4 ||2^(2*2)=16 || 2^(4*2)=256
2020-07-09 00:10
that's not my rule, btw nice try
2020-07-09 00:13
#52
2020-07-09 00:59
#26
 | 
Europe men)
too smart for men mens)))
2020-07-09 00:10
everyone can do that men)))
2020-07-09 00:13
#52
2020-07-09 00:59
i hope it is not x to the half root
2020-07-09 00:14
not my rule
2020-07-09 00:17
#52
2020-07-09 00:58
(256x256)/2 = 32.768
2020-07-09 00:15
the number you suggested follows my rule, but the rule you used is NOT my rule
2020-07-09 00:18
#34
 | 
Portugal P3rfect
2(x^2)/2
2020-07-09 00:20
man, 2/2=1 so it's basically x^2 and i've said it is not correct
2020-07-09 00:21
#36
 | 
Portugal P3rfect
Calm down Beyoncé, it was just a joke
2020-07-09 00:22
#37
 | 
Belgium zthoui
if x^2 follows your rule entirely, its just a similar equations for natural numbers that is equivalent to x^2, maybe be a fourier sum that is equal to your equation for i = numbers inside IN
2020-07-09 00:30
not my rule, completely different
2020-07-09 00:39
#52
2020-07-09 01:00
#38
ropz | 
United States DV19
X is any random integer
2020-07-09 00:27
not my rule
2020-07-09 00:39
I’ll be honest, the way the thread was made is dumb. There are so many viable rules outside of the one you ruled out that its just a matter of guessing which one you preferred rather than a necessarily correct one
2020-07-09 00:30
the rule was, in fact, the simple one. it was just a growing sequence of numbers. there are no wrong numbers you could choose. the only rule to follow was to insert a bigger number of the previous one. many people could find it dumb, but this should teach everyone that whatever data we are looking at, doesn't necessarily describe the most obvious rule (in this case just squaring every result you get starting from 2), but sometimes could absolutely change against our prediction and fooling us. the best way to avoid the "fool" is to take as many data as possible just to be more sure that our prediction are correct.
2020-07-09 00:56
#72
 | 
Canada LARRATT
not my rule
2020-07-09 01:03
GOOD ONE LUL
2020-07-09 01:04
yeah thats pretty dumb
2020-07-09 01:07
ofc you are disappointed
2020-07-09 01:19
he's not wrong, it is stupid. that stupidity rises from the possibility of you maliciously altering your rule. according to your logic, #38 is also a simple rule. how do we know you didn't just change your mind? that's not how we tackle problems empirically, you see, we aren't afraid that some kind of a higher being is going to change how something works, because we solved it once. Now maybe that is the case, but why should we concern ourselves with that? if we gave that possibility too much weight, we couldn't progress, because we would be afraid of everything being unreliable, dynamic. Basically, since the answer to your solution is based on randomness and completely unregulated, you have the complete power to decide whether someone is correct or not and that contradicts with nature of mathematics quite a bit, considering there is no element of trust in there. i get that you are emphasizing how several values taken form a list that follow a certain pattern don't guarantee it, basically the problem with empirical evidence, but i believe the task you presented doesn't represent that very well
2020-07-09 02:16
That was an 8/8 bait what do you mean
2020-07-09 01:38
#96
2020-07-09 01:43
imgur.com/rPYaDXf imagining that you are just taking points from this graph without knowing what is there next to -1/2 (the right of the dotted line). if you start taking points from x = - 3 to x = - 1/2 you could also think that the trend of the function is something parabola like, but looking after x = - 1/2 you can blatantly see how the trend of the function is the exact opposite of what you would've predicted. imagine applying this argument while you are trying to predict the market fluctuation. I'm not pretending this to be something that blows your mind. i perfectly know that this is nothing special, but sometimes it could help thinking on it.
2020-07-09 01:42
#83
 | 
Portugal P3rfect
that makes no sense
2020-07-09 01:28
what part makes no sense?
2020-07-09 01:29
#84
NiKo | 
Philippines yekeko
hey, that was a dumb one but quick to overlook :) nice lesson to start the day
2020-07-09 01:28
#106
 | 
Belgium zthoui
THATS FUCKING WHY YOU ONLY INTERPOLATE AND NEVER EXTRAPOLATE WHEN YOU DONT FUCKING KNOW THE EXPECT RESULT/CURVE
2020-07-09 04:05
youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo you stole this bit from a 6 year old youtube vid and you didnt even do it right
2020-07-09 04:08
"you didnt even do it right" imagine if that rule could only be applied in just one type of sequence LMFAO
2020-07-09 13:00
You are stupid
2020-07-09 09:52
no sense
2020-07-09 09:57
Yeah well its missing 32 64 128 so it didnt make sense anyway to habe 2^
2020-07-09 10:05
2^2=4 4^2=16 16^2=256
2020-07-09 13:01
literal cringe
2020-07-09 10:09
not my rule sorry
2020-07-09 00:57
#41
 | 
Finland veganisti
1+1=2
2020-07-09 00:31
1+(x^2)-1
2020-07-09 00:32
ez: Ax = 1/3*(109x^3 - 639x^2 + 1160x - 624) close
2020-07-09 00:38
#44
flusha | 
Finland )))
a_n = 1/3(109n^3 - 639n^2 + 1160n - 624)
2020-07-09 00:36
not my rule
2020-07-09 00:42
#49
flusha | 
Finland )))
#40
2020-07-09 00:49
#52
2020-07-09 00:56
1 3 2
2020-07-09 00:46
#50
cu | 
Albania bizhuy
multiply by the previous number to the power of 2. 4 x (2^2) = 16 16 x (4^2) = 256 so the next will be 256 x (16^2) = 65.536
2020-07-09 00:50
So basically x^2?
2020-07-09 00:54
#52
2020-07-09 00:57
#52
2020-07-09 00:57
#53
vsm | 
Brazil mafe^
you just did x.x, i mean, thats not x^2
2020-07-09 00:56
#52
2020-07-09 00:57
(square of x²) ^ 2 ? xd
2020-07-09 00:57
#52
2020-07-09 00:57
oh nvm just have read #52 wtf men(((
2020-07-09 01:25
2 . 2 = 2^2 2 . 2 = 4 ----> 4 . 4 = 4^2 = 16 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 = 16 ----> 16 . 16 = 16^2 = 256 i gave the answer in #52
2020-07-09 01:25
#65
 | 
Canada LARRATT
x+(x-1).x
2020-07-09 01:02
#52
2020-07-09 01:00
I think there is some subtraction involved
2020-07-09 01:00
#52
2020-07-09 01:01
(0,9+1,1)=2 (2+2,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)=4 (4+12)=16 (16+240)=256
2020-07-09 01:13
#71
 | 
Portugal KuaZar
109/3n^3-104n^2+209/3n+2 ?????
2020-07-09 01:03
#75
 | 
Slovenia Quicker007
Square root
2020-07-09 01:10
+2 +12 +240 ez
2020-07-09 01:21
2^8/2^(8-2^x) 2^8/2^(8-2^0) = 2^8/2^8-1 = 2 ....
2020-07-09 01:26
#52
2020-07-09 01:27
what does #52 mean?
2020-07-09 01:31
look the reply #52
2020-07-09 01:32
ouff i just wasted 10 minutes of my life :( was expecting a serious math riddle. If there is no mathematic context in the sequence you cant call it a "Math Game"
2020-07-09 01:37
#96, sorry for your disappointment
2020-07-09 01:44
#86
 | 
France NMLVirush
u chose the three first numbers randomly and then you added the middle two digits and combined the three digits that you get after that (4+1=5 and you assemble 2 5 and 6 to get 256), ez
2020-07-09 01:30
x/(1/x)
2020-07-09 01:31
im stupid so i dont kno
2020-07-09 01:32
#91
 | 
France NMLVirush
its the sequence 2^(2^n) for n>=0, ez
2020-07-09 01:33
2*2 4*4 16*16 256*256 65536*65536
2020-07-09 01:33
literally what you should NOT do
2020-07-09 01:42
#93
 | 
United States RopzIsCute
Useless thread, reported.
2020-07-09 01:36
ends in even number
2020-07-09 01:58
2^2 = 4 2^4 = 16 2^8 = 256 you doubled the ^ every time
2020-07-09 02:10
Bro you re just writing random numbers in ascending order Nt veritasium
2020-07-09 03:18
10+9=21
2020-07-09 03:25
2^(2^(n-1)), n=1,2,3... ez
2020-07-09 03:38
flag xd
2020-07-09 09:59
2^2^n starting with n=0
2020-07-09 10:06
#115
 | 
Vietnam Sooaside
2^(2n-2)
2020-07-09 11:48
Ascending order is not a rule you use to create numbers. It's merely a constraint. You don't have any deterministic, generative function creating your numbers. Invalid question.
2020-07-09 13:12
Endpoint
1.77
Movistar Riders
2.01
Positive Vibes Only
4.36
Chaos
1.20
Nemiga
1.62
c0ntact
2.25
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.