Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
grey cells

Question

In a sequence , in general , i.e in most of the cases , we always proceed to find the numbers in ascending order . For a change , let's try it in the descending order. We generally do not attempt to design such a sequence as it has to start from infinity .

So in this sequence , there are no numbers prior to the first number(to reduce the complexity) of the sequence . So just start from the first number . :)

Find the missing number :

97 81 79 63 61 54 _ 45 43 ..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Guest
In a sequence , in general , i.e in most of the cases , we always proceed to find the numbers in ascending order . For a change , let's try it in the descending order. We generally do not attempt to design such a sequence as it has to start from infinity .

So in this sequence , there are no numbers prior to the first number(to reduce the complexity) of the sequence . So just start from the first number . :)

Find the missing number :

97 81 79 63 61 54 _ 45 43 ..... ;)

50.

Something along the lines of the digits add to 5, and 50-5=45.

I see some of that in the sequence, but I don't see all the rules in the sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest
43

It can't be that, though, because it's a sequence of numbers in descending order, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
In a sequence , in general , i.e in most of the cases , we always proceed to find the numbers in ascending order . For a change , let's try it in the descending order. We generally do not attempt to design such a sequence as it has to start from infinity .

So in this sequence , there are no numbers prior to the first number(to reduce the complexity) of the sequence . So just start from the first number . :)

Find the missing number :

97 81 79 63 61 54 _ 45 43 ..... ;)

It looks to me like 52 works...,or at least no evidence was given to show that it is incorrect.

The sequence that makes 52 work is the following:

Subtract the sum of the digits from the number, (eg 97-(9+7)=81).

Then subtract 2

and repeat.

Notice that if you pair up the second and third, the fourth and fifth, etc that the difference is always 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest
It looks to me like 52 works...,or at least no evidence was given to show that it is incorrect.

The sequence that makes 52 work is the following:

Subtract the sum of the digits from the number, (eg 97-(9+7)=81).

Then subtract 2

and repeat.

Notice that if you pair up the second and third, the fourth and fifth, etc that the difference is always 2.

I agree, 52 seems to fit perfectly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest
43

43 doesn't work it's in a descending order. Plus please use a spoiler in the future :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

OK . Sorry for the delay guys . I got up late this morning(headache).

Yeah . 52 seems to fit the sequence . First Nikyma got it and then Eventhorizon gave the right explanation . And Noct too is right .

But what I had in mind was something different . So I will add a couple of numbers to the sequence to make it clear :

New sequence : 97 , 81 , 79 , 63 , 61 , 54 , _ , 45 , 43 , 36 , 31 .....

OK . This definitely makes the sequence clearer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

I tried several fashion...every thing results in 52...but u r saying its not correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
53...the missing alternative prime!!!

Yes . Storm has got it . :)

52 would have been correct for the first sequence , i.e. , before I had added a couple more numbers to the sequence .

Sequence : 97 81 79 63 61 54 53 45 43 36 31....

97 -> 9+7=16 .

97-16=81(2nd number in sequence)

The prime number after 81(in descending order) would be 79(3rd number in sequence).

Again 79 -> 7+9=16.

79-16=63(4th number in sequence)

The next prime number would be 61(5th number in sequence).

And so on....

I thought some of you would see 97 and 79 , and go for palindromic sequences . But I think nobody fell for that one. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...