A Conversation for The Myth Of 42 [(5-3+0+5) * (6+0) = 42]
42ism
Rosemary {[(2+2+2)^2]+4+2=42} Started conversation Oct 15, 2004
Mine goes round with me as part of my user name {[(2+2+2)^2]+4+2=42}
2+2+2=6
6X6 {also expressed as 6^2} =36
36+4=40
40+2=42
42ism
The Mayan Templar Posted Oct 21, 2004
I have two
the first one uses the {6 x 9 = 42} rule
(2*0+9)*(2*0+6)=42
and the second traditional one
(2*0+sqrt(9))*(20-6) = 42
42ism
Potholer Posted Oct 22, 2004
Excellent.
If you want a traditional solution without the sqrt, my program suggests
(2+0)*9*2+0+6
or
2*0+(9-2)*(0+6)
42ism
illaveaguinness Posted Nov 16, 2004
I am quite impressed at the effort that everyone has gone to in order to find all of the mathematical methods of producing the number 42 (Fourty two) however .. as you are all aware the question to the ultimate answer of life the universe and everything is "what do you get if you multiply six by nine" (as pulled out of the scrabble bagon pre-historic earth) ... well the answer to that one is 54 ... in our standard decimal counting system (or base 10) .. however there are several other counting systems such as binary where 42 is equal to 101010 ... or Hex (base 16) where 42 = 2A ... It just so happens that 6*9 in base 13 is 42 (four two) i.e. 4*13 = 52 with two remaining .... 42 ...
.... so who's up for the challenge ! Interstella travel beckons .. you just have to do the math's slightly differently !
42ism
Rod, Keeper of Pointless and/or funny discussions or statements Posted Dec 13, 2004
whohooo! found mine!!! my evening is wonderfull again
wait, must remember to post it...
-1* sprt(9)+ 0*1+ 9*5 = 42
Rod
42ism
Potholer Posted Dec 13, 2004
Excellent
Yours is actually a pretty tough number - having multiple 1s,0s and 9s does generally make things quite hard. Most U-numbers have multiple solutions just using +-* and /, but for yours, my (not-quite-perfect) solver program could only come up with
1-9+0+(1+9)*5
(effectively 50-9+1), which in essence is largely the same form as your solution (45-3).
42ism
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted Jan 26, 2005
NO SQRTs!!!!
sorry ...
Apart from that well done...
Unless someone has changed the page I'm pretty sure it says about NO SQUARE ROOTS, oh and the two types of 42ism - the DNA Stylee and the "regular" stylee...
42ism
Rod, Keeper of Pointless and/or funny discussions or statements Posted Feb 10, 2005
regarding square roots the page actualy sais:
>sqrt - Square Root (prefence not to use this)
so it's not forbidden, just a preference. And besides, if you look at the examples given on the page there are a few amongst those with square roots.
And can you tell me what the difference between using a square root and 'to the power (^) is (except for the part of getting strange decimale numbers most of the time...)
Rod
42ism
Potholer Posted Feb 10, 2005
I suppose it could be argued that sqrt is like using ^(1/2), but without needing to have the 1 and the 2 present.
I can see the point having it as 'best avoided', since generally it's just a quick digit-switcher (9->3, 4->2), but that really puts it at worst on a par with sin, cos and ! used for 0<->1 conversions.
42ism
another primate (called rik) Posted Mar 7, 2005
So is there a preference for simpler solutions or over the top ones?
from 1372176: 1+3-7+2+1+(7*6)=42, although it did seem like a bit of a cheat with the whole 7*6 and cancelling out thing. I also got it really quickly, and as I was trying to engage in a serious session of procrastination at the time it just wouldn't do for my purposes! So, I went a bit silly and came up with:
1*((3!)^((-7+2^1)+7))+6 =42
Is either considered a "purer" form of 42ism?!
42ism
Potholer Posted Mar 7, 2005
I think there's an aesthetic preference, possibly rather more common among the people who can manage to find a simpler solution for their own number.
I suppose the simplest answers are no-bracket solutions using just + and -, since they can be simply read from left to right without the implicit parentheses involved with * and -.
That said, 13+7+21+7-6 or 1+37+2+1+7-6 aren't really much different to 1+3-7+2+1+7*6, it's just that solutions simply using + and - are all going to be expressible without brackets, whereas many * or / solutions will use brackets
I'm 9+25+8+0, so maybe I'm biased.
42ism
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted May 4, 2005
Ahem, sorry to shout, but stuff like ^ (to the power of) is fine as you have to include another number for it to make sense...
I s'pose you could follow the argument further and say that ! (Factorial), Sin, cos, etc... Are all invalid as is sqrt - but that'd be silly (when has that every stopped me)...
However the main reason for "outlawing" sqrt is to do with other possiblities - if you allow sqrt you should then allow cubed root, Squared, Cubed, etc....
Key: Complain about this post
42ism
- 1: Rosemary {[(2+2+2)^2]+4+2=42} (Oct 15, 2004)
- 2: The Mayan Templar (Oct 21, 2004)
- 3: Potholer (Oct 22, 2004)
- 4: illaveaguinness (Nov 16, 2004)
- 5: Rod, Keeper of Pointless and/or funny discussions or statements (Dec 13, 2004)
- 6: Potholer (Dec 13, 2004)
- 7: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (Jan 26, 2005)
- 8: Rod, Keeper of Pointless and/or funny discussions or statements (Feb 10, 2005)
- 9: Potholer (Feb 10, 2005)
- 10: another primate (called rik) (Mar 7, 2005)
- 11: Potholer (Mar 7, 2005)
- 12: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (May 4, 2005)
More Conversations for The Myth Of 42 [(5-3+0+5) * (6+0) = 42]
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."