four 1's

aarthivg

@aarthivg-HH344f • Oct 27, 2024

Oct 27, 2024

1.1K

using four ones what is the maximum number can be obtained(can use any arithmetic operators)

Like 0 Replies 16

Replies

Welcome, guest

Join CrazyEngineers to reply, ask questions, and participate in conversations.

CrazyEngineers powered by Jatra Community Platform

Harshad Italiya

@harshad-ukH5ww • Jan 5, 2012

11^11 😀
0
aarthivg

@aarthivg-HH344f • Jan 5, 2012

godfather
11^11 😀
rite
0
Harshad Italiya

@harshad-ukH5ww • Jan 5, 2012

Few days back CEan-silverscorpion had solved same question in this section only. 😎
0
aarthivg

@aarthivg-HH344f • Jan 5, 2012

godfather
Few days back CEan-silverscorpion had solved same question in this section only. 😎
sorry. i haven't noticed it.
0
Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Jan 5, 2012

Can we generalize this? The maximum number obtained using any number 'x' using n times?

Like: Max number that can be constructed using 3, 5 times or using 5, 3 times?
0
Dancer_Engineer

@dancer-engineer-EJ8rGI • Jan 5, 2012

The_Big_K
Can we generalize this? The maximum number obtained using any number 'x' using n times?

Like: Max number that can be constructed using 3, 5 times or using 5, 3 times?
5 ^ (5 ^ 5) ?
0
Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Jan 5, 2012

I'm thinking of coming up with a formula.
0
Dancer_Engineer

@dancer-engineer-EJ8rGI • Jan 5, 2012

The_Big_K
I'm thinking of coming up with a formula.
Ok. Cool. 👍

I think the 'raise to' operator gives the Max number in majority cases.

The formula would depend on
i) whether we are using same operator or different operators.
ii) whether we are using the numbers together or individually.
0
simplycoder

@simplycoder-NsBEdD • Jan 9, 2012

(1+1)/(1-1) is this valid form, even though division by 0 is meaning less, I would like to frame my solution slightly different manner.

Concept of a division:
If we divide a number x with number y then the quotient we get is inversly proportional to the y(divisor).
Say if we follow, 8/8 will be 1. 8/4 will be 2, 8/2=4 8/1 will be 8 and so on..
Now it can be noted that as the divisor goes on decreasing, the quotient increases.

Mathematically speaking, zero is the smallest possible number where as infinity is the largest possible number. Since this cannot be fixed at any value, it cannot be strictly defined and limited to some number as 1,2,3 and so on.

Various people can assume various values of infinity and thus it is said to largest possible number.(Which is what exactly is asked in the question)

By the concept of division, Largest possible quotient can be accquired by smallest possible divisor, in this case I propose the divisor to be 0.

Well I think this can be a indefinite solution for indefinite question(Question whose goal can interpreted differently).

I think in general mathematics, its meaning less to divide by 0 but question here asked is the largest possible number, so my answer would be infinity,
0
Dancer_Engineer

@dancer-engineer-EJ8rGI • Jan 9, 2012

Wow. 😎

Ok, the question is this:
The maximum number obtained using any number 'x' using n times.

Here we are not finding the maximum number possible.

We have to find maximum number using any number 'x' using n times.

Like the example given by Big K,
Max number that can be constructed using 3, 5 times or using 5, 3 times?

So if we solve to find max number using 5, 3 times;
based on different conditions it would give different solution.

Case 1: using only 1 operator
Sol: 5 ^ (5 ^ 5)

Case 2: using more than 1 operator
Sol: [5! ^ (5! ^ 5!)]!

Case 3: using the numbers individually
Sol: same sol as case 1 and 2

Case 4: using the numbers individually and/or together
Sol: 55! ^ 5! OR 555! OR 5! ^ 55!

Am I making sense here😒
0
sachinswetha

@sachinswetha-Ko1jA4 • Jan 29, 2012

godfather
11^11 😀

0
sachinswetha

@sachinswetha-Ko1jA4 • Jan 29, 2012

aarthivg
rite
1111!
0
ISHAN TOPRE

@ishan-nohePN • Jan 29, 2012

godfather
Few days back CEan-silverscorpion had solved same question in this section only. 😎
This is actually one of the puzzles in Shakuntala Devi's book.
0
Dancer_Engineer

@dancer-engineer-EJ8rGI • Jan 29, 2012

Someone throw light on my post. 👀
0
Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Jan 29, 2012

Okay, I think we need to define the number of operators as well. Else we can repeat the operators a gazillion times and still add a factorial to it to make it even bigger 😁

I think we should impose a limit of only one operator. Does that make sense? 😨
0
Dancer_Engineer

@dancer-engineer-EJ8rGI • Jan 29, 2012

Ok, that's about the operators.
What about the numbers? Do we use the numbers individually / together / both?
0