N.A vs F.A big debate (2 Viewers)

[lfc_reds2003]

m8 i never claimed to have either FA nor NA

leave me out of it...

or fight me.......... whatever u please

 

[who_loves_maths]

okay F.F., i've just sent you the solution, told you its long.

 

[FinalFantasy]

that solution was crazy!

 

[lfc_reds2003]

good man steeley we're finally getting along... i hope

 

[who_loves_maths]

sorry slide,

my bad for asking does 'n' exist...
you see, i mistakingly took the base units as 6^1, 6^2, and 6^3, when it should be 6^0, 6^1, 6^2. lol, just a silly mistake.

otherwise it's pretty easy, just form a quadratic and solve. (lol, with my first interpretation you form a cubic which incidentally has an irrational solution.)

the other root shouldn't be counted though, you can't have base 'n' where n is not integral.

 

[who_loves_maths]

correction, not 6^0, 6^1, 6^2,
i just meant n^0, n^1, n^2, where n is the base... i just put six because clearly the base must exceed n=6.

sorry about that.

 

[who_loves_maths]

lol, i see a little bit of contradiction here slide...

 

[who_loves_maths]

hehe... maybe my original "does 'n' exist?" question (in the context of bases) wasn't illegitimate after all. (n>6 via Logic...)

 

[KFunk]

sry KFunk can do every umat q in 1-2 mins... gees m8 u never cease to amaze me

I'm missing your point. Either you have dry sarcasm or we're on a different page.

 

[lfc_reds2003]

umm its just ur arrogance is well non-stop...and is clearly not sarcastic....

im just giving u sum life coaching

 

[KFunk]

And now I feel ignorant. Where was I arrogant? Coach me.

(honest request)

 

[lfc_reds2003]

well ok then... when u said i can do all the UMAT questions in like 1min (thanks for that) shudve just said if i have seen a similar question b4 it makes it much easier

we dont need to hearr specifics about your tremendous ability lol
we all love each other here .. no need to promote oneself .. (lol how hypocritical of me tho i was alwyas clearly joking - stirring a bit of interest)

ps: see u july 27

 

[KFunk]

I'm sorry you thought it was arrogant but I was illustrating my argument with a very real example. My point hinges around the fact that I'm not particularly amazing at the questions but the fact that I have experienced certain question types before makes them much easier the next time I come across them. I just thought that the UMAT questions were relevant given the frequent debates over whether or not you need to study for them (i.e the NA vs FA debate) and the best I can do is talk from personal experience. If you could, I'd like you to read my post again. Where I talk about sequence questions, I speak in general (though it may seem to you that I'm speaking directly about the UMAT). Any sequence questions, mensa booklets, raven's progressive matrices etc.

Anyhow, I still think that 2 minutes is pretty generous for your average sequence question and as far as the UMAT goes I still can't do those type II questions for the life of me. Which is why I'm going to work at them ... which is back to my point. Working at these things helps. Exposure helps. If I went in to do the UMAT right now I don't know that i'd do well enough to get a UNSW interview. Should I put some work into it then I think I'm in with a chance. That's just my opinion concerning NA vs FA.

 

[lfc_reds2003]

kk fair call matey

 

[Templar]

On nature vs nurture...you're very hard to find someone with just nature, since as soon as someone displays excellence in a subject they are nurtured for maximum potential. You can work hard and still get there, but nature does offer a helping hand should everything else be the same.

Here's another sequence, just for fun:

122, 146, 102, 699, 703, 83, 166, 390, 562, 523...

Guess the next 10. This does actually have a point in maths, despite how random it seems.

 

[withoutaface]

That's one fucked up sequence Templar :/

 

[who_loves_maths]

You're on the right track. I don't know why you got n>6, though?

you posed the problem in the spirit of logical reasoning. it's very easy to find the roots of that quadratic or to even form that quadratic in the first place (as i alluded to in previous posts.) but the answer of n= 5 is not logically viable when we are talking about bases.

in the base 10 system, the digit vary from 0 to 9 (no digits exist representing 10 or more). similarly, in the base 2 system, the digits vary from 0 to 1 (no digits allowed above 1).
... in your answer you got n=5, yet the number you gave was 645, now if it is base 5 then you cannot have the 6 or the 5 digit in there as there are only 5 base 5 digits: {0,1,2,3,4}.

so in fact, 175(base 10) = 1200 (base 5).

i thought this would have been straightforward enough a concept for you.

P.S. that is why i asked does 'n' exist. the answer is that NO it does not exist in the context of bases as you asked in your question. there is no solution to 645(base n) =175(base 10) for 'n'.

 

[who_loves_maths]

and Slide, as to your other question:

I don't know why you got n>6, though?

arguing the same logic in my last post backwards:

645(n) = 175 ---> since there is a '6' in 645(n), then obviously base n: n>6 , or otherwise the '6' cannot exist in that base if the base is less than 6.

 

[Templar]

That's one fucked up sequence

Ever wondered how pseudorandom number generators work?

(Sqrt(2)^EulerGamma)/10=0.12214610269970308316639056252373863479...

The sequence is chaotic. It is predictable if you know the seed value.

 

[who_loves_maths]

Ever wondered how pseudorandom number generators work?

(Sqrt(2)^EulerGamma)/10=0.12214610269970308316639056252373863479...

The sequence is chaotic. It is predictable if you know the seed value.

how is this pseudorandom when you give the digits of that number in three's? it's completely random.
it's only pseudorandom to you because you know where you 'randomly' plucked it out of!

that sort of sequence is ridiculous, anyone can just take any random transcendental numbers or even just irrational ones and start quoting the decimal place in however many digits they want... what's the probability of anyone being able to spot it?
you didn't even need to restrict yourself to three digit number, you might as well have quoted any length of numbers, the probability of anyone picking up on it is about as small as they would if you used just single digits.

it seems to me that this is pretty well completely random!