$6 6 6 6 = 58$
$+ - * /$ and $()$ only
58 must remain as 58, (not 5 + 8, etc.)
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
-
1$\begingroup$ Why it's getting downvoted ? $\endgroup$– user27395Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 13:53
-
2$\begingroup$ Are we allowed to turn the sixes upside-down? If so, we have this curious identity that uses 5 sixes: 696/(6+6) = 58 $\endgroup$– The TurtleCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 15:52
-
2$\begingroup$ @TheTurtle: If we are using 5 sixes, without turning any upside down we can do [(6+6)/6]^6-6 = 58. $\endgroup$– XenocaciaCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:27
-
2$\begingroup$ It's definitely an impossible task without some lateral thinking. $\endgroup$– greenturtle3141Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:30
-
11$\begingroup$ It's not possible. Not even with decimal points and exponentiation. So this is "guess how I'm cheating". $\endgroup$– Rosie FCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:37
|
Show 4 more comments
10 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
$66 - 6 - 6 = 58$
(at least in the base-14 system).
answered Oct 1, 2016 at 14:58
-
1$\begingroup$ Also
6*(6+6)+6in same base and6*6*6+6in another nice base. And6*(6+6+6)in 20. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 22:33
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Lateral thinking solution #507:
$66-6-6+4=58$
The $4$ is a $/$ over a $+$.
answered Oct 1, 2016 at 18:12
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Here's a fun possibility:
Adding just '/': $6666 \ne 58$
answered Oct 1, 2016 at 15:30
-
4$\begingroup$ Upvoting, but technically the op explicitly stated he wants the sixes to equal 58. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:28
-
6$\begingroup$ @greenturtle3141 Why upvote if it doesn't answer the question? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:54
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
My guess is that the desired answer is:
6()-(6+6)/6 = 58 meaning 60 - 12/6 = 58
answered Oct 1, 2016 at 15:12
-
1$\begingroup$ I interpret those empty brackets as them containing a zero, since, by definition, zero is nothing. $\endgroup$– EKonsCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 19:00
-
2$\begingroup$ He's using the two brackets as either side of a 0 not as actual brackets. $\endgroup$– gtwebbCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 19:34
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
Maybe
$-(-6-(6*6)-16)=58$ ; where the $1$ is a sideways minus sign
Explanation
$-(-6-36-16) = -(-42-16) = -(-58) = 58$
-
$\begingroup$ You seem to be using the $1$ as a digit, not as you specified. $\endgroup$– EKonsCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 19:02
-
1$\begingroup$ @ΈρικΚωνσταντόπουλος The 1 is not a 1, it is a minus sign rotated 90 degrees. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 20:32
-
$\begingroup$ @wizzwizz4 Oh, I was confused. So, this is a lateral-thinking answer, huh? $\endgroup$– EKonsCommented Oct 2, 2016 at 6:24
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
You can run my code here which takes as input the number of test cases on one line, and then for each test case there are four lines, each the value of one of $a,b,c,d$ which can have any of the operations occur on them as long as the result is an integer. It prints out all of the resulting possibilities. It was marked correct when submitted to this online judge. This is not a full answer, but I believe this means that there is no valid way to do this without lateral-thinking, for which there is no tag.
-
2$\begingroup$ I think you could improve this by removing the emphasis on your code and instead describing what it does and what the result means. The list of integers returned are all the possible integer solutions for the problem, and the fact that the list does not include the number 58 when given
6666as input shows that this is impossible without lateral-thinking. I would like to upvote this, but at the moment it is not an answer so I cannot. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 20:30 -
3$\begingroup$ Agreed: as it stands, this would be better off as a comment than an answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 21:47
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
The closest I can get is
(6**6)/(6!)-6 = 58.8
it needs to be cast to an integer
But yes, factorials and rounding are not allowed.
answered Oct 1, 2016 at 19:42
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
Probably invalid, but a creative lateral-thinking attempt:
$(66-66)_1=58$
Note that the number is: $(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)_1$
Using leading zeroes...
-
$\begingroup$ I would edit out the "please don't downvote" if I were you; that will prime users to downvote your answer. I actually think it's pretty good, but that's just my opinion. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 20:27
-
4$\begingroup$ I downvoted because this doesn't work in any level; 0 is not equal to 58 in any base and where did 1 come from? $\endgroup$– ffaoCommented Oct 1, 2016 at 21:20
-
$\begingroup$ @ffao came from lateral thinking? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2016 at 0:03
-
-
$\begingroup$ @EvanCarslake In base 1, there is only 1 digit, $0$. Since $0_1$ is $0_{10}$, and leading zeroes are ignored though, we can assume that, in a sense, this is invalid (50% of people think it's valid, 50% think it's invalid.) $\endgroup$– EKonsCommented Oct 3, 2016 at 12:41
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
I'm going for:
$\dfrac{-6-6-6}{6}=5-8$ and $\dfrac{6+6+6}{6}=-5+8$
-
5$\begingroup$ According to the updated question, this answer is invalid. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:54
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
How about:
$6+6+(6/6)=5+8$
This works because
$6 + 6 = 12$ and $6 / 6 = 1$, so $12 + 1 = 13 = 5 + 8$.
answered Oct 1, 2016 at 13:53
-
2$\begingroup$ According to the updated question, this answer is invalid. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 17:54
-
$\begingroup$ @randal'thor, I'll leave it here as an example $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2016 at 18:02