Science experiment

OK, I'm going to give a sequence of three numbers. They follow a simple rule.

Your task is to express the rule with your own example sequence of three numbers, followed by an explanation of the rule.

Ready?

36, 18, 6

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, I'm going to give a sequence of three numbers. They follow a simple rule.

Your task is to express the rule with your own example sequence of three numbers, followed by an explanation of the rule.

Ready?

36, 18, 6

12 ,6,2...     i think..not sure now..lol

24, 12, 4

Oh I give up

OK, heavenly father and Tess are both right, but you have to explain the rule as well

feelthelove wrote: Oh I give up

 :<:i}: :<:i}: :<:i}: 

18 9 3

halve the first number and then divide the resulting number by three.

It means the first number has to be divisible by 3 and 2

Sassy, your numbers follow my rule.

However, your explanation is not the rule I'm using.   

Sassy wrote:18 9 3

halve the first number and then divide the resulting number by three.

It means the first number has to be divisible by 3

Well done Sassy

Edit ~ Sorry, I jumped the gun there   

I'll give another number sequence that should help:

17, 4, 1

6 x 3 = 18
6 x 6 = 36

36 18 6


3 x 3 = 9
3 x 6 = 18

18 9 3

Last number x 3 to get middle number
x 6 to get first number

90 45 15

120 60 20

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'll give another number sequence that should help:

17, 4, 1

Have to have a rethink then

And just for good measure, one final sequence:

500, 450, 400

Right, I'm going to finish the dinner and have a think, you have me intrigued.

Sassy wrote:Right, I'm going to finish the dinner and have a think, you have me intrigued.

Now I'm starting to feel kind of bad -- I'll add one more set of numbers. Again, these all follow the same rule:

41, 13, 8

39 21 5
that work Ben?

NemsAgain wrote:39  21 5
that work Ben?

Yes -- can you explain the rule these sets of numbers follow?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:39  21 5
that work Ben?

Yes -- can you explain the rule these sets of numbers follow?

The first one is the largest number, then a smaller number and lastly the smallest number of the three

NemsAgain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:39  21 5
that work Ben?

Yes -- can you explain the rule these sets of numbers follow?

The first one is the largest number, then a smaller number and lastly the smallest number of the three

Bingo!

With the first set of numbers, a pattern (or hypothesis, that at least three people discovered) seemed obvious. But as more number sets (or "evidence" in the experiment) were gathered, it overturned the original hypothesis and revealed a more robust one -- that the number sets are just whole numbers listed from largest to smallest.

The point is, this is how scientific experimentation works. It's actually more about eliminating explanations until only one can be held to be valid.

  

In other words, the easiest explanation, don't complicate it. You little bugger, there was me working out all kinds of mathematical links!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

The first one is the largest number, then a smaller number and lastly the smallest number of the three

Bingo!

With the first set of numbers, a pattern (or hypothesis, that at least three people discovered) seemed obvious. But as more number sets (or "evidence" in the experiment) were gathered, it overturned the original hypothesis and revealed a more robust one -- that the number sets are just whole numbers listed from largest to smallest.

The point is, this is how scientific experimentation works. It's actually more about eliminating explanations until only one can be held to be valid.

Sorry was on the phone
I got it right lol go me!

NemsAgain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Bingo!

With the first set of numbers, a pattern (or hypothesis, that at least three people discovered) seemed obvious. But as more number sets (or "evidence" in the experiment) were gathered, it overturned the original hypothesis and revealed a more robust one -- that the number sets are just whole numbers listed from largest to smallest.

The point is, this is how scientific experimentation works. It's actually more about eliminating explanations until only one can be held to be valid.

Sorry was on the phone
I got it right lol go me!

You is well clever    x

Sassy wrote:  

In other words, the easiest explanation, don't complicate it.   You little bugger, there was me working out all kinds of mathematical links!

That's why I felt bad; this works better in real life than when people have time to really try to puzzle it out -- sorry!   

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sassy wrote:  

In other words, the easiest explanation, don't complicate it.   You little bugger, there was me working out all kinds of mathematical links!

That's why I felt bad; this works better in real life than when people have time to really try to puzzle it out -- sorry!   

OK, in which case: Using 8 exactly eight times to make a 1000.

feelthelove wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Bingo!

With the first set of numbers, a pattern (or hypothesis, that at least three people discovered) seemed obvious. But as more number sets (or "evidence" in the experiment) were gathered, it overturned the original hypothesis and revealed a more robust one -- that the number sets are just whole numbers listed from largest to smallest.

The point is, this is how scientific experimentation works. It's actually more about eliminating explanations until only one can be held to be valid.

Sorry was on the phone
I got it right lol go me!

You is well clever    x

Both of you be!

Sassy wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sassy wrote:  

In other words, the easiest explanation, don't complicate it.   You little bugger, there was me working out all kinds of mathematical links!

That's why I felt bad; this works better in real life than when people have time to really try to puzzle it out -- sorry!   

OK, in which case: Using 8 exactly eight times to make a 1000.

Holy crap, that sounds difficult ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sassy wrote:

OK, in which case: Using 8 exactly eight times to make a 1000.

Holy crap, that sounds difficult ...

Look for the easiest way.

feelthelove wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Sorry was on the phone
I got it right lol go me!

You is well clever    x

You is right, I is well clever

Honest Ben, it ain't that difficult.

Sassy wrote:Honest Ben, it ain't that difficult.

Oh jeez ...

888 plus 88 plus 8 plus 8 plus 8. Yeah, it's easier than I made it out to be!

There you go! Well done.

HAH! That's so simple even my cat could work that out & I haven't even got a cat.

Try these numbers....

68,941,24000/18,201/200,919,611678

Let me know how you get on.

Shady wrote:HAH! That's so simple even my cat could work that out & I haven't even got a cat.

Try these numbers....

68,941,24000/18,201/200,919,611678

Let me know how you get on.

:::grouch:: :::grouch:: :::grouch:: :::grouch::
thats easy
...
...
3 numbers Shady pulled out of his ass

Well, seems even his numbers are shit eaters lol

Sassy wrote:Well, seems even his numbers are shit eaters lol

Awww bless.I nearly chocked on my tea....isn't that what you usually say Sass?

Hey Sass,I knew you'd get involved in this one.It's brilliant isn't it? Just like old times.You,me & Catty ripping the shit out of each other.

Oh I did miss you two so much.....all that pent up banter & then BANG! Up we go like one of Dougies orgasms.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!

Shady, I'm off to bed to have a cuddle with a real man, not a pathetic old has been who never was in the first place. Night, don't forget to feed your parrot.

veya_victaous wrote:

Shady wrote:HAH! That's so simple even my cat could work that out & I haven't even got a cat.

Try these numbers....

68,941,24000/18,201/200,919,611678

Let me know how you get on.

:::grouch:: :::grouch::  :::grouch::  :::grouch::  
thats easy
...
...
3 numbers Shady pulled out of his ass  

   

Whoops Veya....you slipped up there old chap.

Ever heard of this....Fermat's Last Theorem?

Let me know when you work this out...1+1=? And then we'll talk about Theorem...In about 20 years time.Yes?

Sassy wrote:Shady, I'm off to bed to have a cuddle with a real man, not a pathetic old has been who never was in the first place.   Night, don't forget to feed your parrot.

Oh I just LURRRRRVE it when you speak like that.

Hey what's this I hear about you getting married?

 

Well I read the whole thread and came to a few different conclusions only to realise that the simplest one was the answer?
I have the IQ of a pea.   

Shady wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

:::grouch:: :::grouch::  :::grouch::  :::grouch::  
thats easy
...
...
3 numbers Shady pulled out of his ass  

   

Whoops Veya....you slipped up there old chap.

Ever heard of this....Fermat's Last Theorem?

Let me know when you work this out...1+1=? And then we'll talk about Theorem...In about 20 years time.Yes?

Lol you mean am I a fan of the Simpsons

http://gizmodo.com/did-homer-simpson-solve-fermats-last-theorem-1425792272

and the answer is NO Homer did not get it right. the first 2 work don't equal the 3rd number to satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two

Ben_Reilly wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

The first one is the largest number, then a smaller number and lastly the smallest number of the three

Bingo!

With the first set of numbers, a pattern (or hypothesis, that at least three people discovered) seemed obvious. But as more number sets (or "evidence" in the experiment) were gathered, it overturned the original hypothesis and revealed a more robust one -- that the number sets are just whole numbers listed from largest to smallest.

The point is, this is how scientific experimentation works. It's actually more about eliminating explanations until only one can be held to be valid.

That last sentence is such complete bullshit. You need to brush up on the scientific methods.

The scientific method is a series of steps followed by scientific investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, and conducting scientific experiments. Scientific inquiry starts with an observation followed by the formulation of a question about what has been observed. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Experiment
Results
Conclusion

Not guess my thinking behind series of numbers. Lol! FFS. D'UH!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:The scientific method is a series of steps followed by scientific investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, and conducting scientific experiments. Scientific inquiry starts with an observation followed by the formulation of a question about what has been observed. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Experiment
Results
Conclusion

Not guess my thinking behind  series of numbers. Lol! FFS. D'UH!

yes that is how one experiment works. At that point you have a conjecture.. but then the Peer Review process kicks in and other scientists try their own hypothesis based of the original experiment. IF people largely agree they are getting the same results and conclusion then you have some sort of Theory (Capital T) it doesn't become Law until it can be proved universal in all circumstances. i.e. Even if they get the same results they might not reach the same conclusion if they have a different hypothesis to begin with. So if people can reach a different conclusion than the original Hypothesis is disputed, over time more experiments and new more expansive Hypothesis may find enough proof create a Theory or if a few cases a Law.

In the example of Fermat's Last Theorem (from the post to Shady above) it took 358 years to Prove. One Man does not make Science it takes time it is and adaptive evolving process.

Talking of numbers, one that has always fascinted me is 9. It doesn't matter what you do with it, it always rounds down to 9 again.
Example:
9*7= 63. 6+3=9. 9*5=45. 4+5=9. 9*13=117. 1+1+7=9.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:The scientific method is a series of steps followed by scientific investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, and conducting scientific experiments. Scientific inquiry starts with an observation followed by the formulation of a question about what has been observed. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Experiment
Results
Conclusion

Not guess my thinking behind  series of numbers. Lol! FFS. D'UH!

yes that is how one experiment works. At that point you have a conjecture.. but then the Peer Review process kicks in and other scientists try their own hypothesis based of the original experiment. IF people largely agree they are getting the same results and conclusion then you have some sort of Theory (Capital T) it doesn't become Law until it can be proved universal in all circumstances. i.e. Even if they get the same results they might not reach the same conclusion if they have a different hypothesis to begin with. So if people can reach a different conclusion than the original Hypothesis is disputed, over time more experiments and new more expansive Hypothesis may find enough proof create a Theory or if a few cases a Law.

In the example of Fermat's Last Theorem (from the post to Shady above) it took 358 years to Prove. One Man does not make Science it takes time it is and adaptive evolving process.

The point remains - Ben was talking bullshit about how scientific experimentation works. If you want to defend that then you're malign yourself to look like a prize t.

As for Fermat, was his theorem proved by experimentation or mathematical deduction? Do you know the difference?

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, heavenly father and Tess are both right, but you have to explain the rule as well

First number divided by two then divided by three. It's probably much more complex than that, but that's what I saw.

Tess. wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, heavenly father and Tess are both right, but you have to explain the rule as well

First number divided by two then divided by three.  It's probably much more complex than that, but that's what I saw.

yep me too...  

stardesk wrote:Talking of numbers, one that has always fascinted me is 9. It doesn't matter what you do with it, it always rounds down to 9 again.
Example:
9*7= 63. 6+3=9.  9*5=45. 4+5=9. 9*13=117. 1+1+7=9.

Me too stardesk. Simple things please me  ::D:: 

High Eddie. The simple things in life can be fascinating and interesting.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

yes that is how one experiment works. At that point you have a conjecture.. but then the Peer Review process kicks in and other scientists try their own hypothesis based of the original experiment. IF people largely agree they are getting the same results and conclusion then you have some sort of Theory (Capital T) it doesn't become Law until it can be proved universal in all circumstances. i.e. Even if they get the same results they might not reach the same conclusion if they have a different hypothesis to begin with. So if people can reach a different conclusion than the original Hypothesis is disputed, over time more experiments and new more expansive Hypothesis may find enough proof create a Theory or if a few cases a Law.

In the example of Fermat's Last Theorem (from the post to Shady above) it took 358 years to Prove. One Man does not make Science it takes time it is and adaptive evolving process.

The point remains - Ben was talking bullshit about how scientific experimentation works. If you want to defend that then you're malign yourself to look like a prize t.

As for Fermat, was his theorem proved by experimentation or mathematical deduction? Do you know the difference?

Mathematical Experimentations (there was literally a computer going through every possible combination By 1993, Fermat's Last Theorem had been proven for all primes less than four million.)... the Mathematical Expression was not completed until 1995.
An experiment is of no scientific value unless it can be quantified mathematically. All true Sciences are an extension of Mathematics.

And Ben Simplified the Process BUT so are you. You point out the beginning, that is correct but then the peer review process does fulfil the function that Ben stated. Thus you are correct that is how a Hypothesis is presented for Peer Review, and Ben is also correct that the Peer Review will try and disprove/dispute the hypothesis.