Reducing 1M to 7: Is There a Shorter Way?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter recon
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenge of reducing the number 1,000,000 to 7 using only basic arithmetic operations (+, -, ×, /) and the digit 7. Participants explore various methods and approaches to achieve this goal, while adhering to the constraints of using a basic calculator without advanced functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose lengthy methods involving repeated divisions and subtractions, such as using the expression [1,000,000 - (7/7)] divided by 7 multiple times.
  • Others suggest alternative formulations, including using powers of 7, but acknowledge that these may not work on a basic calculator.
  • Several participants present convoluted solutions involving multiple operations with 7, such as subtracting and adding various multiples of 7, 77, and 777.
  • One participant humorously suggests a method that technically uses brackets, which they acknowledge as cheating.
  • Another participant emphasizes the limitation of not being able to use decimal points or advanced functions, which complicates the search for a solution.
  • Some participants express frustration at the difficulty of the problem, noting that it appears simple yet is challenging to solve.
  • A few participants share their attempts at finding shorter or more efficient solutions, but there is no consensus on the best approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on a single method to reduce 1,000,000 to 7, with multiple competing views and approaches presented throughout the discussion. The problem remains unresolved, with various proposed solutions being debated.

Contextual Notes

Participants are constrained by the use of a basic calculator, which limits the functions available for solving the problem. This context affects the feasibility of certain proposed solutions and the overall complexity of the challenge.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those who enjoy mathematical puzzles, brain teasers, or exploring creative problem-solving techniques within strict operational constraints.

recon
Messages
399
Reaction score
1
Can you reduce 1,000,000 to 7 using only the functions +,-,X and / with the digit 7?

I know a lengthy way of doing it - [tex][1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}] \div 7 \div 7 \div 7 ...[/tex].

Is there a shorter way?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
recon said:
I know a lengthy way of doing it - [tex][1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}] \div 7 \div 7 \div 7 ...[/tex].
[tex](1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}) \div(7^7) \div(7^7)...[/tex]

It is a bit shorter.

The Bob (2004 ©)

EDIT: [tex](1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}) \div(7^7) = 1.2142645[/tex] That decimal run does not seem to have a fraction that can be put to it so I am stuck on how you got 7 from what you had.

[tex][(1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}) \div(7^7)]+[(7\times\frac{7}{7})-\frac{7}{7}]= 7.2142645[/tex] which is close.
 
Last edited:
[tex]\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)^{(7 - \frac{7}{7})}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention that you're supposed to solve this by using a basic calculator that has no 'power' function. This renders the two solutions above to the realm of the 'lengthy'.
 
[tex]\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)\left(\frac{77 - 7}{7}\right)[/tex]

or

[tex]\left(777 + 7 \times 77 - \left(7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + \frac{7}{7}\right)\right) \times 777 + \frac{7}{7}[/tex]

or

[tex]\frac{7,777,777 - 777,777}{7}[/tex]

or even

[tex]\frac{777777}{.777777}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Sorry ceptimus, but you've got to start out with the number 1,000,000 and then reduce this number to 7 using anyone of the basic functions mentioned in my earlier post.
 
[tex]1,000,000 \times \frac{.777777 \times 7}{777777} = 7[/tex]
 
Sorry to disappoint you again. It seems that I have not explained the problem properly. Try to imagine that you're using a calculator that has only the buttons [tex]1,0,7,+,-,\div, \times, =[/tex]. You may only use the 1 and 0 buttons for inputing the number 1,000,000 and for nothing else.

So you can now see that it is not possible to use decimal points the way you used it. :)
 
How about

[tex]1,000,000 \times (7 - 7) + 7 = 7[/tex]

:-p

OK, that still uses brackets, and it's cheating.
 
  • #10
I like that! :smile: However, I think that's cheating... o:)

Then again, I also did cheat with the brackets in my first post.
 
  • #11
This works on a basic 4-function calculator without a decimal point.

[tex]1,000,000\;-\;7\;\div\;7\;=\;\div\;777\;-\;7\;\times\;77\;+\;7\;+\;7\;+\;7\;+\;7\;+\;7\;\div\;7\;=\times\;7\;\div\;777\;=[/tex]
 
  • #12
recon said:
Can you reduce 1,000,000 to 7 using only the functions +,-,X and / with the digit 7?

I know a lengthy way of doing it - [tex][1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}] \div 7 \div 7 \div 7 ...[/tex].

Did you mean :
[tex]([1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}] \div 7) - 7 - 7 ... ~~~?[/tex]
 
  • #13
If you're allowed to hit the 1/X button (which you're not), there's an easy way :

(1,000,000 + (777,777/7) )/7,777,777...and take the reciprocal.
 
  • #14
Gokul43201 said:
Did you mean :
[tex]([1,000,000 - \frac{7}{7}] \div 7) - 7 - 7 ... ~~~?[/tex]

Actually, yes. But it still won't work. :mad:
 
  • #15
ceptimus said:
How about

[tex]1,000,000 \times (7 - 7) + 7 = 7[/tex]

:-p

OK, that still uses brackets, and it's cheating.
If you don't have to say 1,000,000 _first_, (7-7)*1000000 + 7 can be done on a basic calculator.
 
  • #16
Or, if you take advantage of the limited # of digits that can be stored in a basic calculator, you can do something like 1000000 / 7777777777777777 + 7
 
  • #17
I think this may be the hardest brain teaser, yet. :-p

It looks so simple, though... :cry:
 
  • #18
1000000 1001 /
 
  • #19
Very interesting question.

1000000 - 777777 - 77777 (repeat twice) - 7777 (repeat 8 times) - 777 (five times) - 77 (seven times) - 7 (four times) *7

would be one rather convoluted solution. I'm sure there's something better though, some number up there ought to be an even multiple of 7, 77, 777, etc. I'm seeing if I can find a more solid solution.
 
  • #20
Wow, I exahausive searched 7k, 77k, 777k.. with each other over +-10 and not a single number is divisible by 7 (or 77, 777 etc, though that would have been kind of a bounus). Unless I did it wrong (and it's entirely possible that I did) I can't find anything. There are several +- solutions that end up with 1 like the one I did above, like:
1000000
-777777
-77777 (3x)
+7777
+777 (4x)
+77 (3x)
-7
*7
for instance. I'm not sure what's considered the "shortest", like fewest buttons pushed? I might do a more solid optimize if I have time or if someone else would enjoy it then go ahead.

[EDIT] Doh.. Adding various multiples of 7 won't have much of an effect on divisibillity by 7, will it now? I'm still thinking about the posibillity of slight mods like *7+7/7 (i.e. +1) in strategic places though, that's probably the ticket if there is a trivial solution.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Been fiddling around a bit, here's one
1000000
*7
-7
/7
/777
-777
+7
+7
+7
+7
*7
+7
/7
/77

20 7s, 33 keystrokes not counting the million. It could probably be polished down a bit I'm sure. The essential trick here is that one can use *7 (several +-7, 77, 777) /7 to accomplish arbitrary additions (by 1, 11, 111 ...) to set things up for divides. There may be a need for = here and there, I don't have really have a "normal" calculator around to test it on.
 
  • #22
Look at all the cool people that can do it in LaTeX...
 
  • #23
1 000 000
* 7
- 7
/ 777 777
- 7
* 7
- 7

11 sevens, 18 keystrokes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 171 ·
6
Replies
171
Views
13K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K