@ All:
So this is a trick that we eventually have to know :P
Where to find these tricks like these on web. Please share the links.
On 12 August 2011 02:12, aditi garg wrote:
> @aseem: using powers of 3 we have to use both sides of the balance...bt if
> we have the constraint dat we can use only
@aseem: using powers of 3 we have to use both sides of the balance...bt if
we have the constraint dat we can use only one side thn powers of 2...i hope
its clear
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:02 AM, aseem garg wrote:
> @Aditi: Why use powers of 2 when we can use powers of three in case of
> weig
@Aditi: Why use powers of 2 when we can use powers of three in case of
weights??
Aseem
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:53 AM, aditi garg wrote:
> @sagar : :):)
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:51 AM, sagar pareek wrote:
>
>> thanks aditi for the explanation
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:28 AM, a
@sagar : :):)
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:51 AM, sagar pareek wrote:
> thanks aditi for the explanation
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:28 AM, aditi garg wrote:
>
>> well it is like i sed fr eg dey ask u the min num of weights required to
>> count all weights from 1-127
>> thn the ans wud be 1 2
thanks aditi for the explanation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:28 AM, aditi garg wrote:
> well it is like i sed fr eg dey ask u the min num of weights required to
> count all weights from 1-127
> thn the ans wud be 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 ie. 7 weights...
> similar concept fr the powers of 3 as well
>
>
> O
well it is like i sed fr eg dey ask u the min num of weights required to
count all weights from 1-127
thn the ans wud be 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 ie. 7 weights...
similar concept fr the powers of 3 as well
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Swati Sarraf wrote:
> @aditi,
> Could you explain it more clearly
@aditi,
Could you explain it more clearly ..
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM, aditi garg wrote:
> well dis is sm maths trick whch we shud knw...
> dis is applicable even wid multiples of 2
> fr eg if u have 1 2 4 8 u can measure any weight from 1 - 15
> if u have like 1 2 4 8 16 thn we can measu
well dis is sm maths trick whch we shud knw...
dis is applicable even wid multiples of 2
fr eg if u have 1 2 4 8 u can measure any weight from 1 - 15
if u have like 1 2 4 8 16 thn we can measure any weight from 1 -31...
simi;larly fr 3 as well
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Swati Sarraf wrote
@sagar, Could you explain how you find these five weights . I mean is it a
guess or any mathematical explaination it there ??
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:12 PM, sagar pareek wrote:
> 81-27+3 =57
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tarun Arya wrote:
>
>> sagar...cud u pls explain d weight
Sagar..tat's coolhow did u end up with 1,3,9,27,81curious to
know...:)
Tarun
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email t
81-27+3 =57
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tarun Arya wrote:
> sagar...cud u pls explain d weight distribution for 57...
> Tarun
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Algorithm Geeks" group.
> To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googl
sagar...cud u pls explain d weight distribution for 57...
Tarun
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
algogeeks+unsubscr
well tarun at first i thought same the answer to be 7
as 121 can be represented in 7 bits
but total on bits are 5.. thats y 5 is answer
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sagar pareek wrote:
> ask any weight if u think 5 is not correct
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:25 AM, tarun wrote:
>
>> but
ask any weight if u think 5 is not correct
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:25 AM, tarun wrote:
> but u cant measure all items till 121 kg using these 5 weights,
> so 7 is correct i think..
> Tarun
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Algorithm Geek
but u cant measure all items till 121 kg using these 5 weights,
so 7 is correct i think..
Tarun
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this grou
1 3 9 27 81
5 weights enough
On Aug 11, 11:13 pm, Mani Bharathi wrote:
> how?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
al
16 matches
Mail list logo
