What is the next number in the sequence?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter joeyar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying the next number in a given sequence: 2, 8, 62, 622, 7772, ... Participants explore various hypotheses and mathematical approaches to derive the next term, engaging in a mix of reasoning and personal insights.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the next number is 116584.
  • Another participant calculates 117644 using the formula n^(n-1) - n + 2, claiming it fits the sequence well.
  • A later reply confirms 117644 as correct and praises the calculation.
  • Another participant describes their reasoning process, noting exponential growth and the relationship between terms, ultimately arriving at the same formula for 117644.
  • One participant suggests that the next number could also be 11111, linking it to the roots of a specific polynomial.
  • Another participant humorously mentions that 17 has been claimed as the next number in every sequence, referencing a prior discussion.
  • A new participant suggests that any number could potentially fit in such sequences, echoing a sentiment about the flexibility of sequence definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the next number in the sequence, with multiple competing views presented, including 116584, 117644, and 11111. The discussion remains unresolved regarding which number is definitively correct.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying degrees of certainty and employ different reasoning strategies, indicating that assumptions about the sequence's nature and rules may not be fully articulated or agreed upon.

joeyar
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
2, 8, 62, 622, 7772, ...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
116584?
 
I get

117644
n^(n-1) - n + 2

eom
 
jimmysnyder said:
I get

117644
n^(n-1) - n + 2

eom

Ahh, good work, you're right.
 
Yes, jimmysnyder got it. Well done mate.
 
jimmysnyder said:
I get

117644
n^(n-1) - n + 2

eom
And quick too,
did you use any "special logic” to guide your judgment to a solution
or was it random attempts and personal "feel".
 
Got it too, love these brain teasers!

I first noticed there was exponential growth involved, I tried dividing the terms and noticed that the quotient of a term and its predecessor was increasing. I then did som algebra and noticed that expressions of the form n^A has a quotient approaching 1 as n approaches infinity, which doesn't fit this case. I then tried n^n and found that it met the increasing-quotient criteria, but the actual numbers for the cases of n = 1, 2, 3, 4 .. were a bit off. I then realized that it had to be n^(n-1) which gave me an almost perfect fit, except for a linearly increasing difference. This last term turned out to be (-n + 2). The next number therefore has to be n^(n-1) - n + 2 = 7^6 - 7 + 2 = 117644

When I do these kinds of puzzles I like to forget my knowledge of calculus and series and just do it the way I did when I was smaller and there was an exciting number-quiz in the newpaper. :)
 
11111. These are roots of the following polynomial:

[tex]f(x) = x^6-19577x^5+99504914x^4-60788218692x^3+3929719423336x^2-34258540436320x+53282917476608[/tex]

:-p
 
Ah, how could I have missed something so obvious!
 
  • #10
RandallB said:
And quick too,
did you use any "special logic” to guide your judgment to a solution
or was it random attempts and personal "feel".
The fact that 8, 62, and 622 are all close to small powers of small integers, and off by 1, 2, and 3 was the key for me.
 
  • #11
Borek said:
11111. These are roots of the following polynomial:

[tex]f(x) = x^6-19577x^5+99504914x^4-60788218692x^3+3929719423336x^2-34258540436320x+53282917476608[/tex]
That's quite a coincidence. It turns out that 11111 is also the next number in the sequence:

1 -19577 99504914 -60788218692 3929719423336 -34258540436320 53282917476608
 
  • #12
TBH that's not my idea. I believe originally it was claimed that 17 is the next number in every sequence, but I don't remember who was the author.
 
  • #13
Hi Borek and others - I just happened on this forum a couple of days ago. Maybe you all are way ahead of me...or maybe not. I thought it was common knowledge that any number can be a correct number in a series sequence like these. Almost like Borek says, except, "...17 can be...", rather than, "...17 is..." I think that can be chiseled in stone.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K