Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 196
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I also found a hole. Six (2*3) as a setter is weak. You need 18 (=2*3*3). // Counterexample for the top formula: n = 2;
There seems to be no holes now: group A+B = 2 + n*18. Correspondingly, group X+Y+Z = 2000 - ( 2 + n*18 ), where n is in the range 0...55.
That leaves a total of 56 solutions.
In fact all solutions except n=0. In short, Sergey (Contender) was right, the solution with two weightings is the only one: 1+1 + 666+666+666. Amen.
One comparison )
"I don't believe it" (c) K. Stanislavsky.
Come on, show me what you got, I'll show you a hole. :)
One comparison )
"I don't believe it" (c) K. Stanislavsky
Come on, show me what you've come up with, I'll show you a hole. :)
One comparison is enough!
Are you sure you don't want to figure it out yourself already? ;)
One comparison is enough!
Are you sure you don't want to figure it out yourself already? ;)
Under so much pressure I have to agree. ;)
// One solution for sure. No others are in sight yet. Looks like the only one.
Under so much pressure, I have to agree. ;)
// One solution for sure, no others seem to be in sight yet.
:))
We divide it into 3 piles: 667 + 667 + 666?
:))
We divide it into 3 piles: 667 + 667 + 666?
by three, but not like this: 666+666+668
;)
by three, but not like this: 666+666+668
;)
So the solution is not one, but one and a half ;)
sanyooooook: блин математики давайте хоть какой нить срок выполнения задачи после которого вы предоставляете ответ, а то я про ферзей до сих пор решаю )
The answer will be in your personal message as soon as you ask.
Yes, the short solution does indeed seem to be the only one:
1+1+666+666+666 and 2 weighing.
Prove that in one weighing is impossible. Zadachas of such type on braingames.ru must be justified - if it is not specially mentioned that it is not necessary to prove minimalism.
Or show how a single weighing can be done. You certainly can't do without weighing :)