378
   

NeoPets Riddles (Lenny Conundrums) and Answers Here

 
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:03 pm
Why would it not work?
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:04 pm
I used an excel sheet and used the sum functions to come up with an answer. I do believe it works.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:07 pm
This is not correct. It wants the MINIMUM number. For the first few bags, you only need to put 1 in the first pouch, 2 in the second pouch, 3 in the next pouch, then skip to 7 coins for the next pouch for example, because you can already make 4, 5, and 6 with the first three pouches.
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:13 pm
I agree that I can do it with a number of bags that is a prime number whose digits sum to 4, as was suggested a couple of pages ago. However, I'm not necessarily convinced that is the minimum number of bags required.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:14 pm
My first thought is to go with powers of 2, so 1, 2, 4, 8, etc. That gives me 872 leftover coins in a last bag, I believe.

This would be following your logic of going 1, 2, but then skipping 3 because 3 = 2 + 1.
View Profile willzi8
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:18 pm
I do think you can do it with less... not sure I want to check my answer though Dx
View Profile DDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:22 pm
Giving away the answer would take all the fun out of it.

Besides, I hear there are 10 types of people: Those who understand ______ and those who don't. (c;
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:24 pm
I'd love to know if you have managed to come up with a smaller solution. I'm not having any luck reducing the number, but don't have a proof that it is the smallest set.
0 Replies
 
View Profile willzi8
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:27 pm
I was thinking that if you do the same thing up to 999 and then 2 pouches of 1000 and one of 2000
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:29 pm
And then one for the leftover coins, gives me one more than my original solution.
View Profile willzi8
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:30 pm
I get one less =/
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:31 pm
Yeah. I used 1, 2, 4 as well but did not want to give out solution.
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:35 pm
Sorry, that does make the solution pretty easy if it turns out to be the correct method, doesn't it? On the other hand, I do want to help people out with clues, just not give away the final answer.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:45 pm
geometric progession works up to a certain number, but after that would you turn to a different method or would you start at another geometric progreesion? i think my answer is an undersestimate, but oh wells, i've submitted already.
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:53 pm
The geometric progression will work all the way up if you just toss the leftover coins into another pouch. What I'm not sure about is whether there is another method that can work with those leftover coins to make a smaller number of pouches.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:03 pm
Okay, I can satisfy the conditions of giving out exactly any total that is asked for by using pouches containing 1, 2, 4, ..., 2^n plus a pouch containing the leftover coins. This gives me n+2 pouches.

So the question is, can I find a set of values, a(1), a(2), ... a(n+1) such that
1. the sum of a(1) + a(2) + ... + a(n+1) = 4967, and
2. for any number from 1 to 4967, I can give you a set of pouches that totals that number.

The alternative would be to ask whether we can prove there is no such set. My number theory is too weak to come up with either answer immediately.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:03 pm
Okay...I feel like an idiot now. Thanks for the hints without answers. I've got what you guys are saying...and if it isn't the smallest answer possible, it's the closest I'm going to get!
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:16 pm
I reckon just find out how many times the maximum can be divided by 2 Very Happy

Gonna do it later though. Got an exam in an hours time x_X
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:42 pm
Why divide the maximum by 2?
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:54 pm
It's the same geometric progression idea that we were looking at earlier. The idea is to divide the total by 2, then divide it by 2 again, and see how many times you can do that until you get to less than 1.
 

Related Topics

Lenny Conundrum #133 - Discussion by moon lights shadow
lenny conundrum - Discussion by goose12000
Lenny conundrum May 2009 - Discussion by kaleli
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.41 seconds on 11/21/2009 at 08:17:01 Top End