How o get 364 using only a few numbers

I'm sure I've seen this before and its no coincidence that the numbers allowed are all derivatives (is that the right word?) Of 12 which doesn't divide equally into the required number.
 
Nerusy said:
That's we disagree. If we can use any number of power and add anything to the number to make it different number then the "puzzle" is again pointless as you can add any power to create any number you want.

For example 6^3.29126424 = 364.
Click to expand...

And going to the power of 3.29126424 is called? That's not quite the same as the 'Square' function which is a known operator in its own right and literally speaking doesn't involve introducing another number.

But if your inference is you can only use minus, multiply and divide then the problem is impossible. It's a slow day at work on a Friday so I wrote a quick application to process every possible permutation of numbers, the three operators named above and bracketing and of the 65,593 unique sums & results none can get you to 364. You can get 360 [e.g 12x6x(4x2-3)
]or 384 [12x(6x3x2-4)] but not 364.

However that did involve looking at sums which used all of the numbers given, I can't be arsed looking at every possible permutation where you don't use some numbers.

So either...

a) You can use operators like factorial
b) It's stupid joke and is meant to waste people's time (in which case well done OP)
c) It can be done by not using all the numbers (although still highly doubtful)

If the joke is you just put the 3,6 and 4 together than I suggest the OP doesn't do jokes that were done 14 years ago...

5:40
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
And going to the power of 3.29126424 is called? That's not quite the same as the 'Square' function which is a known operator in its own right and literally speaking doesn't involve introducing another number.

But if your inference is you can only use minus, multiply and divide then the problem is impossible. It's a slow day at work on a Friday so I wrote a quick application to process every possible permutation of numbers, the three operators named above and bracketing and of the 65,593 unique sums & results none can get you to 364. You can get 360 [e.g 12x6x(4x2-3)
]or 384 [12x(6x3x2-4)] but not 364.

However that did involve looking at sums which used all of the numbers given, I can't be arsed looking at every possible permutation where you don't use some numbers.

So either...

a) You can use operators like factorial
b) It's stupid joke and is meant to waste people's time (in which case well done OP)
c) It can be done by not using all the numbers (although still highly doubtful)

If the joke is you just put the 3,6 and 4 together than I suggest the OP doesn't do jokes that were done 14 years ago...

5:40
Click to expand...

Just because ^2 has a handy name and ^3.29126424 doesn't make them different in terms of operation, you're raising a number to a power either of 2 or of 3.29126424. I mean are you seriously arguing just because ^2 has a convenient name then operation becomes "free"? Muon more elegantly explained why your approach is essentially cheating. Also squaring does introduce another number, it's 2. Just like square root is not just a magical doodle that square roots a number, it's a way to represent ^1/2


As was mentioned before post 2 quite likely got the point of this "riddle".
 
Last edited:
Nerusy said:
Just because ^2 has a handy name and ^3.29126424 doesn't make them different in terms of operation, you're raising a number to a power either of 2 or of 3.29126424. I mean are you seriously arguing just because ^2 has a convenient name then operation becomes "free"? Muon more elegantly explained why your approach is essentially cheating. Also squaring does introduce another number, it's 2. Just like square root is not just a magical doodle that square roots a number, it's a way to represent ^1/2
Click to expand...

You clearly missed the bit where I said squaring something doesn't LITERALLY involve introducing another number. It may mathematically introduce one but it doesn't literally do because you can use the wording 'square' as I did.

Nerusy said:
As was mentioned before post 2 quite likely got the point of this "riddle".
Click to expand...

And I'm the one cheating :rolleyes:
 
estebanrey said:
You clearly missed the bit where I said squaring something doesn't LITERALLY involve introducing another number. It may mathematically introduce one but it doesn't literally do because you can use the wording 'square' as I did.



And I'm the one cheating :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It literally does involve number 2, that's the point you seem to miss.

As for "cheating", you're trying to follow the rules while actually breaking them whereas 2nd post calls out this "puzzle" as a play on words and answers it as a riddle.
 
Nerusy said:
It literally does involve number 2, that's the point you seem to miss.
Click to expand...

Fine, then please me where there is a 2 in this sentence...

"4 squared is 16"

I'm not using 'literally' to mean 'actually', I'm using it to mean "can be written". You can write the word "square", there is no word for raising to the power of 3.64255 (or whatever your silly example was).
 
estebanrey said:
Fine, then please me where there is a 2 in this sentence...

"4 squared is 16"

I'm not using 'literally' to mean 'actually', I'm using it to mean "can be written". You can write the word "square", there is no word for raising to the power of 3.64255 (or whatever your silly example was).
Click to expand...

squared literally means ^2 :D

I can make up a word for 3.64blabla use it, eventually many people use it, oxford dictionary being reflective puts this made up word to mean to the power of 3.64blabla and bam.

Dude let it go, you're using a nickname for an operation as a separate entity to ^2, it just can't happen. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom