A Conversation for The Myth Of 42 [(5-3+0+5) * (6+0) = 42]

Sent by mice?

Post 1

Jab [Since 29th November 2002]

Is it OK to pair digits to make a larger number eg. 210501
Using the 2 1 as 21. Or is it cheating?

21 x ((-0!)+5-(0!)-1) = 42

smiley - erm


Sent by mice?

Post 2

Jeremy (trying to find his way back to dinner)

IMO it's absolutely ok to do that. To be quite honest, those "single-digits-no-brackets-solutions" are the holy grail of 42ism, but any other solution is quite as welcome, such as:

(2-10+50)*1=42

smiley - smiley

Jeremy


Sent by mice?

Post 3

Jab [Since 29th November 2002]

Well your answer looks neater.
(2-10= -8+50=42)x1=42


But I was also thinking...
(2-10)+50x1=42

50x1=50+(2-10= -8)=42

Using precedence, but with your x1 are the () needed?

smiley - smiley


Sent by mice?

Post 4

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

Nah, the Brackets are redundant in that calculation...

Welcome to the ranks of the Knights of the DoQuaDecahedronic Table...smiley - ok


Sent by mice?

Post 5

Jab [Since 29th November 2002]

Skipped the ( ) for x1 but sometimes ( ) are handy to show the thinking.

Thanks to the first person for the reply, and for the welcome.

smiley - smiley


Sent by mice?

Post 6

AK - fancy that!


Just gotta post something... another one...

210501

21*(-(0!)+5-0!-1)=42

I do these because its fun, can't resist posting.smiley - smiley


Sent by mice?

Post 7

Jeremy (trying to find his way back to dinner)

... or how about

21/0.5*(0+1) = 42 ?


Sent by mice?

Post 8

AK - fancy that!

Ooo a decimal! cool

210501

(2-10)*-5+0!+1=42


Sent by mice?

Post 9

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

OR....

210501... = 210/5 + 0*1 = 42

BTW - I welcomed you to the wrong table - its that there DoQuaDecaGONIC table over in the corner... smiley - biggrin Not that improbable construction you are attempting to perch upon... My fault.. smiley - sheepish smiley - biggrin


Key: Complain about this post