- Status
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,284
- Reaction score
- 6,251
@Kesa:
Couple of possibilities immediately spring to mind.
If you take the second part of the sum to be the literal value multiplied by one then incrementing by one for each iteration, you get 44.
If you take it to be similar but multiplied by the first part rather than incrementing from one, you get 96.
It could also be various other patterns.
Of course, it could just be that whoever originally posted it is rather poor at arithmetic.
Couple of possibilities immediately spring to mind.
If you take the second part of the sum to be the literal value multiplied by one then incrementing by one for each iteration, you get 44.
If you take it to be similar but multiplied by the first part rather than incrementing from one, you get 96.
It could also be various other patterns.
Of course, it could just be that whoever originally posted it is rather poor at arithmetic.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,132
- Reaction score
- 2,624
I got 96 too based on redefining + to mean multiply the left hand value by the right hand value incremented by one so 1*(4+1), 2*(5+1), 3*(6+1) and 8*(11+1).
Could be something more interesting, but that's the one that jumped out at me.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,788
- Reaction score
- 772
- Status