That's an example of thinking outside the box. :D On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM, ron_m <ron.mco...@gmail.com> wrote: > When I saw these I was thinking what kind of weird number base is this > in to get simple addition to yield those results. Oh well back to the > planet I live on. > > On Dec 3, 1:25 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Branko Vukelic wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> >> > wrote: >> >> The answer was obvious at a glance to those of us who had multiplication >> >> tables drilled into us all those years ago, I think. >> >> > I hated those tables. :) Probably explains why it took me so long. But >> > I did in my head more or less the same thing massimo's program did. >> > Just tried different permutations until one fit, and then applied it >> > to the last one to test if it works. >> >> Yeah, they were pretty tedious. >> >> 2+3=10 >> 7+2=63 >> 6+5=66 >> 8+4=96 >> So: >> 9+7=??? >> >> When I see "7+2=63", the 9 sort of jumps out at me, from the proximity of >> the 7 & 63. And of course the 7 & 2 also look like 9, so Eureka! (Once you >> then figure out the role the 9 has to play.) >> >> Ditto the other combinations, though in practice they just serve to confirm >> the original hypothesis.
-- Branko Vukelić bg.bra...@gmail.com stu...@brankovukelic.com Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/ Check out my portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/foxbunny/ Registered Linux user #438078 (http://counter.li.org/) I hang out on identi.ca: http://identi.ca/foxbunny Gimp Brushmakers Guild http://bit.ly/gbg-group
