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.
