1
$\begingroup$

1, 6, 5, 3, 4, 1, 2, 2, ?

Hint: the task is pattern recognition using basic mathematical operations.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Has a correct answer been given? If so, please don't forget to $\color{green}{\checkmark \small\text{Accept}}$ it :) $\endgroup$ – Rubio Oct 11 '17 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ s this pattern the result of a series based on a starting rule that is then used to construct the rest of the series? Like a Fibonacci series? Or is this a pattern that you arbitrarily dreamed up according to a rule that cannot start a series? – $\endgroup$ – Dr t Oct 18 '17 at 18:14
6
$\begingroup$

I guess:

The answer is 0. Every third number is the difference between the previous 2 numbers.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ the only issue i take with an answer like this is, it breaks up the single sequence into individual sequences of 3 entries. However, I like the answer as it answers the question. $\endgroup$ – Jason V Oct 5 '17 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ Is this pattern the result of a series based on a starting rule that is then used to construct the rest of the series? Like a Fibonacci series? Or is this a pattern that you arbitrarily dreamed up according to a rule that cannot start a series? $\endgroup$ – Dr t Oct 18 '17 at 18:13
1
$\begingroup$

If I have to solve this question, you can do this.

Subtract the first number from the second number. 6- 1 = 5, 4 - 3 = 1 , 2 - 2 = 0

so, the series would be

(1, 6, 5), (3, 4, 1), (2, 2, 0)...
Now after 0, the number would be 1.
Adding the triplets and dividing by 4, we get the next number.
See, (1 + 6 + 5)/4 = 3,
(3 + 4 + 1)/4 = 2,
(2 + 2 + 0)/4 = 1

so, the series now would be

(1, 6, 5), (3, 4, 1), (2, 2, 0), 1
And then the next number in the series would be 0
Check the middle number of the triplets, it decreases by 2.
6, 4, 2 and then comes 0

so, the series would be

(1, 6, 5), (3, 4, 1), (2, 2, 0), (1, 0, -1), (0, -2, -2), .........

I hope I answered your question.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

If we can separate the unique sequence into three sequences of three numbers (165 341 22?), then perhaps the pattern can also be:

1 6 5

3 4 1 -

2 2 4

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why 224 specifically though? $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Apr 6 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ Is a subtraction calculation between the first sequence of three numbers and the second one: 165 - 341 = 224. 4 would be the answer. $\endgroup$ – user58413 Apr 6 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ But 165 - 341 is -176, not 224 ... $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Apr 7 at 5:02
  • $\begingroup$ They are sequences, not three-digit numbers. consider the units separately. for example, instead of 165, read one, six, and five. what I propose is the subtraction calculation between the last number of the first sequence (1 6 5) and the last number of the second sequence (3 4 1) to arrive at the third number of the last sequence (2 2 4), since the pattern seems to be repeated in relation to the first two numbers of each sequence: 1 - 3 = 2, 6 - 4 = 2. 5 - 1 = 4. $\endgroup$ – user58413 Apr 7 at 15:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.