7
$\begingroup$

The number sequence is 

73, 70, 49, 52, 35, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, 72,.....

Can you fill in the gaps and predict what happens after 72?

I have updated the hints below.

Hint 1

What are the factors of each number? Calculate factors for each number!

Hint 2

This is a mathematical problem, but does not require complicated maths

Hint 3

If a sequence using exactly the same mathematical rules is started with a different number a different pattern develops. For example; [ 1, 1, 1, 1, ........ ] and [ 48, 48, 48, 48, ........]

|improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

The 5 missing values are:

24, 12, 3, 9, 81

After 72:

Each subsequent value will be 9 less until it gets to 9, then start over at 81, repeating forever.

The method:

To calculate the next value, add the digits of the current value and multiply by the first digit of the current value.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Great Job - Well done :-) $\endgroup$ – tom Mar 2 '18 at 23:47
1
$\begingroup$

The gaps:

34, 21, 16, 7, 0

Reasoning:

Every other number is in octal. When converted to decimal, the values would be:
73, 56, 49, 42, 35, 28, 21, 14, 7, 0
Which (after 73) is of course multiples of 7 descending

What comes after 72 (less sure about this part):

I think the 73, 72, is another countdown. The first number in each sub-sequence is the largest multiple of 7 less than octal 73 or octal 72, etc.

So the sequence will continue...

73, 70, 49, 52, 35, 34, 21, 16, 7, 0
72, 70, 49, 52, 35, 34, 21, 16, 7, 0
71, 70, 49, 52, 35, 34, 21, 16, 7, 0
70, 61, 42, 43, 28, 25, 14, 7, 0
(Sub-sequence has shifted left and octal/decimal values are flipped)

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice reasoning and ideas, but very sorry this is not correct.... $\endgroup$ – tom Mar 1 '18 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ ...you are correct to be working along mathematical lines, but I am afraid that this particular approach is not correct $\endgroup$ – tom Mar 1 '18 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ The idea of every other number in octal giving the sequence is brilliant, but sadly not correct.... --- so +1 for a great idea, but sorry not the correct approach $\endgroup$ – tom Mar 1 '18 at 23:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @tom haha, thank you :) no need to apologize $\endgroup$ – ferret Mar 1 '18 at 23:55

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.