|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crisdean
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Location: Seoul Special City
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:03 am Post subject: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
 |
|
So I was really bored today, and came up with 3 "Math" problems for my students just to see if they could come up with an answer
So here are 3 sequences, can you list the next 3 elements for each sequence, give an algebraic rule (if possible), and tell me if the sequences are convergent, divergent, or neither.
first:
0
10
1110
3110
second:
1
4
11
20
31
third:
2
3
10
15
26 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:35 am Post subject: Re: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
|
|
| crisdean wrote: |
So I was really bored today, and came up with 3 "Math" problems for my students just to see if they could come up with an answer
So here are 3 sequences, can you list the next 3 elements for each sequence, give an algebraic rule (if possible), and tell me if the sequences are convergent, divergent, or neither.
first:
0
10
1110
3110
second:
1
4
11
20
31
third:
2
3
10
15
26 |
first:
....42 42 42
Formula: (-22595x^6+534141x^5-493485x^4+22532535x^3
-52883480x^2+59823684x-25048800) / 360
second:
...42 42 42
third:
..42 42 42
Lagrange Polynomials (Or why those "logical pattern" tests on standardized tests are so stupid).  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crisdean
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Location: Seoul Special City
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| Lagrange Polynomials (Or why those "logical pattern" tests on standardized tests are so stupid). |
While Lagrange Polynomials are great for interpolating data, they are decidedly less useful for extrapolating data. In particular, if the datapoints are implied to be Integers, as they would be in each of my sequences (perhaps I should have made that explicit.) Were one to use Lagrange Polynomials to extrapolate future data point it is extremely unlikely you would get Integer solutions.
You remind me of those people at university that complained about physics problems being stupid because we ignored things like air-resistance. Pattern recognition is one of the many factors of intelligence, and it can be an important skill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
transmogrifier
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First:
132110
1113122110
311311222110
No clue on the others |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crisdean
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Location: Seoul Special City
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| transmogrifier wrote: |
First:
132110
1113122110
311311222110
No clue on the others |
Good! If you were one of my students I'd give you a chupa-chup.
That's one of the two answers I had in mind for that sequence; the other has a similar construction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:05 am Post subject: Re: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
|
|
| Quote: |
second:
1
4
11
20
31 |
After subtracting the squares 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25, I arrived at 0, 0, 2, 4, and 6. I then figured that replacing the 1st 0 with -2 would make a linear pattern for the difference. So, this new "difference" would be described by 2n-4. Adding the squares back in, I got n^2 + 2n - 4 or (n + 1)^2 - 5 which describes the sequence -1, 4, 11, 20, and 31. Thus, we can get the correct sequence by taking the absolute value.
Therefore, our sequence is described by the formula,
A_n = abs[(n + 1)^2 - 5] where n refers to the nth term. Consequently, the next three terms are 44, 59, and 76.
And of course, this sequence will diverge to infinity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: Re: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
|
|
| Quote: |
third:
2
3
10
15
26 |
After again subtracting the squares, we get the sequence 1, -1, 1, -1, and 1. Therefore, the original sequence can be described by the formula,
A_n = n^2 + (-1)^(n + 1).
So, the next three terms will be 35, 50, and 63. Once again, this sequence will diverge to infinity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crisdean
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Location: Seoul Special City
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:56 am Post subject: Re: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Quote: |
second:
1
4
11
20
31 |
After subtracting the squares 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25, I arrived at 0, 0, 2, 4, and 6. I then figured that replacing the 1st 0 with -2 would make a linear pattern for the difference. So, this new "difference" would be described by 2n-4. Adding the squares back in, I got n^2 + 2n - 4 or (n + 1)^2 - 5 which describes the sequence -1, 4, 11, 20, and 31. Thus, we can get the correct sequence by taking the absolute value.
Therefore, our sequence is described by the formula,
A_n = abs[(n + 1)^2 - 5] where n refers to the nth term. Consequently, the next three terms are 44, 59, and 76.
And of course, this sequence will diverge to infinity. |
Wasn't the answer I had intended, but it definitely works, so full points for you.
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Quote: |
third:
2
3
10
15
26 |
After again subtracting the squares, we get the sequence 1, -1, 1, -1, and 1. Therefore, the original sequence can be described by the formula,
A_n = n^2 + (-1)^(n + 1).
So, the next three terms will be 35, 50, and 63. Once again, this sequence will diverge to infinity. |
this is exactly what I had in mind, I'm pretty sure there is only one valid answer for this sequence, but I could be wrong. I wrote the arithmetic expression different, but it's equivalent A_n = |n - i^n|^2 ::edit:: this is incorrect, as noted below.
Last edited by crisdean on Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: Re: A call to my fellow Math/Comp. Sci./Logic nerds |
|
|
| crisdean wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Quote: |
second:
1
4
11
20
31 |
After subtracting the squares 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25, I arrived at 0, 0, 2, 4, and 6. I then figured that replacing the 1st 0 with -2 would make a linear pattern for the difference. So, this new "difference" would be described by 2n-4. Adding the squares back in, I got n^2 + 2n - 4 or (n + 1)^2 - 5 which describes the sequence -1, 4, 11, 20, and 31. Thus, we can get the correct sequence by taking the absolute value.
Therefore, our sequence is described by the formula,
A_n = abs[(n + 1)^2 - 5] where n refers to the nth term. Consequently, the next three terms are 44, 59, and 76.
And of course, this sequence will diverge to infinity. |
Wasn't the answer I had intended, but it definitely works, so full points for you.
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Quote: |
third:
2
3
10
15
26 |
After again subtracting the squares, we get the sequence 1, -1, 1, -1, and 1. Therefore, the original sequence can be described by the formula,
A_n = n^2 + (-1)^(n + 1).
So, the next three terms will be 35, 50, and 63. Once again, this sequence will diverge to infinity. |
this is exactly what I had in mind, I'm pretty sure there is only one valid answer for this sequence, but I could be wrong. I wrote the arithmetic expression different, but it's equivalent A_n = |n - i^n|^2 |
I got the same results as Konglishman.
Your alternate equation doesn't seem to work, however. Perhaps you miswrote it here.
Since i = square root of -1
n=1 ...... x = |2-2i|
n=2 ...... x = 9
n=3 ...... x = |8 + 6i|
etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
