A Conversation for The Myth Of 42 [(5-3+0+5) * (6+0) = 42]
This was an easy one
Oengus (1+7-5)*(5+4+5) Started conversation May 16, 2001
Infuriatingly easy considering the fact that it took me 8 hours to see it.
This was an easy one
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted May 17, 2001
Yeah, well, happens to us all!
I have added to my list...
This was an easy one
Oengus (1+7-5)*(5+4+5) Posted May 17, 2001
Thx Argon, for the inclusion in the list and the words of encouragement. 
This was an easy one
mr bob Posted May 17, 2001
If you want easy, look at this:
(Researcher 174632)
(1+7+4+6+3)*2 = 42!!
(Didn't take me 8 hours though!)
This was an easy one
Researcher 168963 Posted May 20, 2001
Mine is embaressingly simple once I realised that I didn't have to separate the digits.
U168963
16+8+9+6+3=42
Should I link to this page now?
This was an easy one
JJJHowqua Posted May 20, 2001
I'm still awfully stuck for mine. Without getting to the trigonometric stuff, I'm stumped. I can get 43:
U44090= 44+0-9^0 = 43
But that means I'm not really any closer. Any help?
This was an easy one
HenryS Posted May 20, 2001
U44090: -(4!) x sqrt(4) + 0 + 90 = 42
Uses a sqrt, which is a pity, but I can't see a cleaner way.
This was an easy one
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted May 21, 2001
Wow - i can do better that HenryS.....
U44090 = 44 - 0! - 9^0 = 42 EASY!!
Or did "without using Trig" mean not using 0! too?
This was an easy one
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted May 21, 2001
Wow - i can do better that HenryS.....
U44090 = 44 - 0! - 9^0 = 42 EASY!!
Or did "without using Trig" mean not using 0! too?
Not that I think that 0! is Trigonometry that is...
This was an easy one
JJJHowqua Posted May 21, 2001
Oh, thanks! I didn't think about the n! function!
This was an easy one
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted May 22, 2001
Well I had to beat you to one, once in a while!
This was an easy one
vogonpoet (AViators at A13264670) Posted May 22, 2001
Mine is embarrassingly easy , luckily it only took a minute or so.
The symmetry is quite pleasing .
U174321: (1x74)-(32x1)=42 vogonpoet.
This was an easy one
Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) Posted May 23, 2001
Verrily thy Symmetry doth please the eye....
I'll add ya then shall I?
Key: Complain about this post
This was an easy one
- 1: Oengus (1+7-5)*(5+4+5) (May 16, 2001)
- 2: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (May 17, 2001)
- 3: Oengus (1+7-5)*(5+4+5) (May 17, 2001)
- 4: mr bob (May 17, 2001)
- 5: Researcher 168963 (May 20, 2001)
- 6: JJJHowqua (May 20, 2001)
- 7: HenryS (May 20, 2001)
- 8: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (May 21, 2001)
- 9: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (May 21, 2001)
- 10: JJJHowqua (May 21, 2001)
- 11: HenryS (May 21, 2001)
- 12: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (May 22, 2001)
- 13: vogonpoet (AViators at A13264670) (May 22, 2001)
- 14: Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit) (May 23, 2001)
- 15: vogonpoet (AViators at A13264670) (May 23, 2001)
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."