Anyone good with number patterns? This ones driving me crazy!

[dmk]

i did vowels * cons, which works for the 3 control cases as well.

[Duke]

Possibly. That one jumped out at me first.

~D

[Duke]

Actually, I'm sorry about my first dick response to this post. I see it differently though.

Ulysses' ATM question was absolutely unsolvable without the actual answer, then you could reverse engineer possibilities for MC. Some series are also more easily seen when you add that notorious 4th or 5th element.

I saw 25 as that sort of an answer. I figure most of the fun of these things is actually making the final logical leap for yourself, and not just reading the solution and saying: oh ok.

~D

[baggins]

i still don't see 25. i see 24. but not 25.

[Stu Pidasso]

1+3+5 = 9
2+4+6+8 = 20
2+4+6 = 12
1+3+5+7 = 16

The answer is 16

Stu

p.s. I see dead people

[Leo99]

25

[ZeeJustin]

EDITED. Ulysses got mad that I'm giving the answer away.

[ QUOTE ]
ulydiablo (2:49:14 AM): YO
ZeeJustin (2:49:19 AM): HI
ulydiablo (2:49:24 AM): go edit your post in OT
ZeeJustin (2:49:36 AM): omg
ZeeJustin (2:49:38 AM): did i typo?!
ulydiablo (2:49:52 AM): nah, you wrote the answer
ulydiablo (2:49:57 AM): let these morons figure it out
ulydiablo (2:50:01 AM): the hints are too obvious already
ZeeJustin (2:50:10 AM): can i quote you on that?
ulydiablo (2:50:17 AM): yes

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ulysses]

25.

9,10 = 12

I'm not sure I would have gotten this without RMJ's hint. That made it trivially easy.

[Ulysses]

That's kind of gay, Zee, spelling out the answer like that. It has been made obvious enough. You should edit your post.

[ThinkQuick]

Any pattern you can actually explain is possible, so there are many possible numbers that fit into the sequence.

For example, given the sequence 1, 2, 4, _ ; the next number could be 7 or 8 with equal logical support.

However, when given a problem, the direction that our science tends to take us is to search for simplicity.
Given equal explanatory powers, the simplest theory is the best - and according to Occam's Razor, it's probably true.

It may be difficult to determine in my example, but in the stated problem it follows easily that 25 is the best answer, and probably correct.

I'm not gonna be the one to break the unspoken 'don't give the answer' code here, but I think that anyone who can solve this problem the 25 way can see that it employs some common sequence techniques.

The method of solving the problem to get 25 as the answer is the simplest for experienced sequence solvers. Other answers are reaching for patterns that are way less common than the 25 way. I'm suggesting that the fact that they are less easily comprehended or less readily recognized by problem solvers makes those patters inherently less likely to be correct, less likely to be the one the problem-makers chose.

My theoretical physics teacher would have a field day with this. He believes that the universe was created by God in a way that is simple for God, and that if we can understand the universe by its simplest laws, then we can better understand Him.