# 2759, 4248, 1152,?

What comes next? 2759, 4248, 1152, ?

What is the pattern?

The op got it from this site: https://free.ultimaiq.net/nse.htm

• Hi Richard, and welcome to Puzzling.SE! Where did you get this puzzle from? Our Code of Conduct says that if you did not make it yourself, giving credit to the original source is required Commented Apr 11 at 14:21
• chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/14524/2023/7/27/0-24
– user88972
Commented Apr 11 at 15:12
• That's just the first Google result for these three numbers. It's more likely that the original source is the second Google result Commented Apr 11 at 15:22

There is a different pattern at play in this particular example if you look at the digits corresponding to each power of 10:

2759, 4248

Thousands: abs(2 - 4) = 2 Hundreds: abs(7 - 2) = 5 Tens: abs(5 - 4) = 1 Units: abs(9 - 8) = 1

If you swap the order of these and make a number using the units computation first, followed by tens, hundreds and then thousands, you get 1152

Then the next number would be

4248, 1152 abs(4-1) = 3 abs(2-1) = 1 abs(4-5) = 1 abs(8-2) = 6

6,113

• But if you check the answer with the test itself you will see mine is the intended answer.
– PDT
Commented Apr 12 at 15:45
• Also questionable ‘pattern’ if the logic only appears once in the sequence.
– PDT
Commented Apr 12 at 17:15
• @PDT This explanation is just as good as yours is. If it weren't for the test providing an "answer oracle", we'd have no way to decide which of the two explanations is best. Commented Apr 13 at 5:55
• @codewarrior I disagree, it is a standard rule that number sequences require a pattern to be established before in order to justify the answer. This entails a justification based on an a theme appearing at least twice in the data that has already been presented. This answer does not do that mine does. But I don’t really care, I don’t know why you are trying to start something here. It’s the OPs choice or accident.
– PDT
Commented Apr 13 at 6:35
• @PDT although I agree your answer is better and understand your frustration of not being awarded the ok mark: 1/ There is a pattern (4 times abs) in this answer. 2/ Such short sequences often have more possible solution. 3/ The OP may well have intended this solution. 4/ Though unlikely, there might be a pattern that is even 'better' than yours. -- If you had acknowledged that and then explained why your answer is better than this one, it could have been useful to the OP and this contributor Commented Apr 13 at 7:10

Well this was way easier than I initially thought:

572

Logic

If ABCD are the digits of a number, to generate the next number in the sequence you multiply BA x CD. So we get 11 x52 = 572.

• Method: Got lucky using a calculator
– PDT
Commented Apr 11 at 15:58
• Thank you, your answer is obvisously the correct one. It is clean an simple. I appreciate and respect your good reputation.
– user88972
Commented Apr 12 at 7:54
• If you check my answer with the test itself you will see that my answer is correct. I don’t know why the other answer is accepted oh well.
– PDT
Commented Apr 12 at 15:46
• Thanks 🙏 for all the people who upvoted I wasn’t even expecting more than a couple for this post.
– PDT
Commented Apr 13 at 6:54