(Untitled)

Sep 11, 2008 06:51


What is 23*302 if the following is true
0+0=1
0+1=2
0+2=3
0+3=00
0+00=01
0+01=02
0+02=03
0+03=10
0+10=11
1+0=2
1+1=3
1+2=00
1+3=01
1+00=02
1+01=03
1+02=10
1+03=11
0*0=0
0*1=1
0*2=2
0*3=3
0*00=00
1*0=1
1*1=00
1*2=10
1*3=20
1*00=30
2*0=2
2*1=10
2*2=30
2*3=010
2*00=030
3*0=3
3*1=20
3*2=010
3*3=100
3*00=130
and so on...
if you don't like this, just skip it

Leave a comment

Comments 7

freetrav September 11 2008, 02:06:44 UTC
I make it 032320

Reply


hitchhiker September 21 2008, 22:01:50 UTC
hint?

Reply


Reply ratlan September 21 2008, 23:29:28 UTC
Haven't had time to figure out the answer myself.

Reply


freetrav September 22 2008, 00:19:37 UTC
Hmmm...
My answer may be wrong; when I tried doing it again, I got some results that suggest that ASSOCIATIVITY may not work the same way, i.e., (a+b)+c may not be the same as a+(b+c)... Of course, that could just be my screwup.

What's interesting is that we don't seem to have an identity (equivalent to normal 0) for +, although we do have one (equivalent to normal 1) for *. However, what's give does suggest that there SHOULD be an identity for +.

ETA 9/24 09:44 EDT:
There doesn't appear to be a zero-equivalent glyph at all; that means that it can't be a pure place-value system, and about the only way to get the answer is going to be working out the tables that were started with the givens.

Reply


freetrav September 25 2008, 22:24:39 UTC
OK, looking at it from another angle - and one which would support the emoticon of 'devious' - I get 30123 as the answer, in a much quicker analysis.

ratlan, I won't give away my spoilers on this unless/until you say it's OK to do so. As near as I can figure, they're very spoily, to the point where just giving them would lead anyone moderately skilled in math right to the answer.

Reply

Fin ratlan December 2 2008, 04:27:11 UTC
I haven't been very good at keeping up in the past months. Any spoilers would be nice, as I think I may have accidentally posted something which requires more time than I gave it. I would like to know how you got the answer 30123. At this point, I'm pretty much lost. Thank you for solving this riddle.

Reply

Re: Fin freetrav December 2 2008, 06:34:03 UTC
CLUE 1: My previous note about no zero-equivalent glyph is correct; there isn't one. There is, however, a glyph with a value equal to the numeric base of the calculation - like if we had a single symbol for the value 'ten' in everyday math, instead of having a zero, and using a one in the tens column to represent the value ten.

So, using * for 'ten', we'd have 5+5=*, 2x5=*, and we'd count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,*,11,...19,1*,21...

CLUE 2: The riddle, as given, shows us ALL of the glyphs used in the counting system.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up