The number pattern discussed is 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, with the next number being 37, identified as a prime number. Participants initially suggested 35 based on perceived differences between consecutive numbers, but later recognized that the sequence is defined by the inherent property of prime numbers rather than a mathematical progression. The discussion highlights the distinction between patterns and sequences, emphasizing that all sequences are patterns, but not all patterns qualify as sequences.
PREREQUISITESMathematics enthusiasts, educators, students learning about number theory, and anyone interested in understanding prime numbers and number patterns.
Different between consecutive numbers are 2 4 2 4 6 2BvU said:
In my first attempt, I got the same number as you did. But looking at the numbers again, I realized that this is not a sequence based on a progression, but is related to an inherent property of the numbers (in other words, it has nothing to do with the difference or any other mathematical relation between two consecutive numbers). Hope this is a helpful hint.lahirurana said:
Ohhhh s*** How could i miss that. Thank you very much sir. Primary NumbersDrClaude said:
That shows that such problems can have multiple solutions. Unless a context is given, I see no reason why 35 wouldn't be a valid answer.BvU said:
Does that actually count as a "sequence" given there isn't an equation for the nth term?lahirurana said:
I don't think that it can be take from nth termCWatters said:
The OP never used the term sequence, only pattern.CWatters said:
Yep All sequences are patterns but not all patterns will be squencesDrClaude said:
That is definitely a sequence. There is no such requirement that an equation is needed for the nth term.CWatters said:
I agree.SammyS said:
lahirurana said:
37 seemed to me to be the obvious next number in the sequence, for the reason that DrClaude gave.BvU said:
We call them prime numbers in English.lahirurana said:
