How To Solve The 6s Challenge

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 22. 07. 2018
  • Thanks to Tyler Cenko, and Caio Cerqueira from Brazil, for suggesting this wonderful number puzzle! I had a lot of fun solving this. Can you make 6 from 3 copies of the same number, where the number ranges from 0 to 10? You can use common mathematical operations, but you cannot introduce any new digits (so the cube root is not allowed), and you must have an equality (this is not a trick question with the "not equal" sign). This is a great exercise for building mathematical number sense! See the video for the many solutions.
    Sources
    ScamSchool video
    • The HARDEST Puzzle Yet!
    Cut The Knot
    www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmet...
    Puzzling StackExchange
    puzzling.stackexchange.com/qu...
    Subscribe: czcams.com/users/MindYour...
    Send me suggestions by email (address in video). I consider all ideas though can't always reply!
    Why are there comments before the video is published? Get early access and support the channel on Patreon
    / mindyourdecisions
    If you buy from the links below I may receive a commission for sales. This has no effect on the price for you.
    Show your support! Get a mug, a t-shirt, and more at Teespring, the official site for Mind Your Decisions merchandise:
    teespring.com/stores/mind-you...
    My Books
    Mind Your Decisions: Five Book Compilation
    amzn.to/2pbJ4wR
    A collection of 5 books:
    "The Joy of Game Theory" rated 4.1/5 stars on 44 reviews
    amzn.to/1uQvA20
    "The Irrationality Illusion: How To Make Smart Decisions And Overcome Bias" rated 3.5/5 stars on 4 reviews
    amzn.to/1o3FaAg
    "40 Paradoxes in Logic, Probability, and Game Theory" rated 4.4/5 stars on 13 reviews
    amzn.to/1LOCI4U
    "The Best Mental Math Tricks" rated 4.7/5 stars on 8 reviews
    amzn.to/18maAdo
    "Multiply Numbers By Drawing Lines" rated 4.3/5 stars on 6 reviews
    amzn.to/XRm7M4
    Mind Your Puzzles: Collection Of Volumes 1 To 3
    amzn.to/2mMdrJr
    A collection of 3 books:
    "Math Puzzles Volume 1" rated 4.4/5 stars on 13 reviews
    amzn.to/1GhUUSH
    "Math Puzzles Volume 2" rated 4.5/5 stars on 6 reviews
    amzn.to/1NKbyCs
    "Math Puzzles Volume 3" rated 4.1/5 stars on 7 reviews
    amzn.to/1NKbGlp
    Connect with me
    My Blog: mindyourdecisions.com/blog/
    Twitter: / preshtalwalkar
    Newsletter (sent only for big news, like a new book release): eepurl.com/KvS0r
    2017 Shorty Awards Nominee. Mind Your Decisions was nominated in the STEM category (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) along with eventual winner Bill Nye; finalists Adam Savage, Dr. Sandra Lee, Simone Giertz, Tim Peake, Unbox Therapy; and other nominees Elon Musk, Gizmoslip, Hope Jahren, Life Noggin, and Nerdwriter.
  • Věda a technologie

Komentáře • 15K

  • @MindYourDecisions
    @MindYourDecisions  Před 4 lety +3841

    Nearly 2 million views in one year! Thank you!

    • @panginoonn
      @panginoonn Před 4 lety +10

      Hi, Love your videos!

    • @luisalcocer5095
      @luisalcocer5095 Před 4 lety +10

      Does 8-(8/8)!= 6 work? I just learned what factorial means from the video so im not sure

    • @Lara-fg9vq
      @Lara-fg9vq Před 4 lety +2

      you deserve it

    • @prabeshgautam4112
      @prabeshgautam4112 Před 4 lety +5

      I was thinking factorial can't be applied cause factorial uses other no... Like 3! = 3*2*1
      .
      Why??

    • @davidpatterson9770
      @davidpatterson9770 Před 4 lety +8

      You cant use sqrt() either. That's the same as 2root.

  • @JM-po5hu
    @JM-po5hu Před 5 lety +12551

    i smart 2+2+2 = 6

  • @okramra
    @okramra Před 3 lety +5940

    I got the 2, 2, 2 thing in under a second maybe I am a prodigy

  • @jingusflorpus4274
    @jingusflorpus4274 Před rokem +303

    I was messed up when you said that we weren’t allowed to use cube roots, because in my head that meant I wasn’t allowed to use square roots either. As soon as I realized I was allowed to use square roots I figured out the ones I was missing pretty quickly.

    • @aproplayer8581
      @aproplayer8581 Před rokem +4

      We can use cube and square roots but of the same number for you are solving.

    • @king_of_the_sun4897
      @king_of_the_sun4897 Před rokem +22

      Then how did he use a square root for 3s?

    • @redaipo
      @redaipo Před rokem +12

      @@king_of_the_sun4897 he may use a square root because the operation is square by default, but no other root because that would require introducing a new number

    • @awesomeleozejia8098
      @awesomeleozejia8098 Před rokem +4

      @@redaipo the operation is the second root of 3*3

    • @MrEscape314
      @MrEscape314 Před rokem +3

      Could do the cubed root of 3 cubed. That uses only threes and all three of them to get 3.. never mind I'll be going...
      Wait, I meant the 6th root of 6 to the 6th power! Yea! that's what I meant...

  • @roblatour3511
    @roblatour3511 Před rokem +2

    0 0 0 = 6 ; put the first zero on top of the 2nd zero; 8 0 = 6; move the remaining zero to the other side of the equals sign; 8 = 0 6; move the zero one last time so that overlays the six; 8 = 8

  • @BlueCoreGamming
    @BlueCoreGamming Před 3 lety +6728

    If cube root is not allowed, square root should not be either, as it introduces a 2.

    • @Stubbari
      @Stubbari Před 3 lety +225

      No it doesn't.

    • @DarthBil1
      @DarthBil1 Před 3 lety +1423

      @@Stubbari yes it does

    • @DarthBil1
      @DarthBil1 Před 3 lety +1704

      @@Stubbari Just because the 2 isn't written out, doesn't mean it isn't there. What do you think "square" means in "square root".

    • @Stubbari
      @Stubbari Před 3 lety +264

      @@DarthBil1 So if there is no written digit then there's no digit. What's so confusing about that?

    • @DarthBil1
      @DarthBil1 Před 3 lety +85

      Inverse isn't the right word, but it's late and I can't remember the right word for what I'm thinking. I'll get back to it later.

  • @jakobf6165
    @jakobf6165 Před 2 lety +4006

    I found a pretty solution for 10 10 10.
    You can calculate 10 × 10 + 10 = 110, which is 6 in binary representation!

    • @ethanpatch6840
      @ethanpatch6840 Před 2 lety +302

      that is a nice answer but i don’t think that actually counts as a proper solution

    • @txtp
      @txtp Před 2 lety +383

      well-
      10 + 10 + 10
      2 + 2 + 2

    • @txtp
      @txtp Před 2 lety +53

      another binary one

    • @BigMikeECV
      @BigMikeECV Před 2 lety

      There are 10 types of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don't.

    • @Serai3
      @Serai3 Před 2 lety +61

      I don't think mixing bases would count.

  • @MrTacoLama
    @MrTacoLama Před rokem +75

    In the first case I've actually used Cos(0) instead of 0! My other solutions were similar to yours. That was some really pleasant math here ;) Thanks for the video!

    • @hugh.g.rection5906
      @hugh.g.rection5906 Před 8 měsíci +3

      Cos(0) isn't a common mathematical operation

    • @therealmaster9686
      @therealmaster9686 Před 8 měsíci

      @@hugh.g.rection5906 tbh i've used the cosine function much more that factorials

    • @msncat
      @msncat Před 8 měsíci

      @@hugh.g.rection5906 i think it is because he didn't restrictions in detail on this

    • @rayaanansari4834
      @rayaanansari4834 Před 8 měsíci

      @@hugh.g.rection5906prove it

    • @swedishpsychopath8795
      @swedishpsychopath8795 Před 7 měsíci

      @@hugh.g.rection5906 Ask Mathologer, I guess it is super-common to him?

  • @eddeh0772
    @eddeh0772 Před rokem +25

    I followed the same path and worked out the first six pretty easily, but it never occurred to me to use the factorial before giving up and watching the solution. I think I could have got there eventually, but I’m not sure I ever would have thought how to work out the 888 one. That’s some Inception level stuff! Kudos to those who worked them all out
    Edit: first seven, not six… got stumped by the use of factorials. Should have questioned why the answer was always 6!

    • @Vicandiers
      @Vicandiers Před rokem

      so what was your solution to 000 and 111?

    • @eddeh0772
      @eddeh0772 Před rokem +1

      No I mean the first 7 he solved, because I followed the same path, not the first 7 sets in numerical order. So like, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777 and 999 I could work out, but I got stumped by 000, 111, 888 and 101010, because I never thought to use factorial

    • @Vicandiers
      @Vicandiers Před rokem +1

      Got it

    • @bragesrensen9889
      @bragesrensen9889 Před 10 měsíci +1

      The answer wasn't always 720

    • @smaransure2234
      @smaransure2234 Před 8 měsíci

      i got all of them except 10 10 10

  • @connormorton665
    @connormorton665 Před 3 lety +2126

    Alternate title: how make three numbers equal 3 and then apply a factorial operation

    • @Nightmare_Developer
      @Nightmare_Developer Před 3 lety +34

      yes i solved almost all that didnt include ! except 8 that was hard one tho, don't mind coz im newbie in math...

    • @SorakuteeYT
      @SorakuteeYT Před 3 lety +18

      @@Nightmare_Developer How did u solve 1 withouts factorial. Would u mind sharing

    • @Nightmare_Developer
      @Nightmare_Developer Před 3 lety +25

      @@SorakuteeYT umm no i said i solved all that didn't include !(factorial) except 8 coz i dont even know what ! is

    • @SorakuteeYT
      @SorakuteeYT Před 3 lety +10

      @@Nightmare_Developer i mean the one with 1.
      1 1 1=6
      I cant solve it without factorial

    • @arcanesmemes
      @arcanesmemes Před 3 lety +42

      @@SorakuteeYT he's saying he did all of the equations that DON'T require factorial. 1 1 1 requires a factorial, meaning he didn't do 1.

  • @babitasaxena2369
    @babitasaxena2369 Před 4 lety +3441

    I figured out
    6 6 6 = 6
    We cannot use not equal symbol
    But can use = since not any rule for this
    6 = 6= 6= 6
    😂😂😂🤭🤭🤭🤣🤣🤣

  • @moetocafe
    @moetocafe Před 10 měsíci +7

    Very interesting. Initially I was able to figure out the answer only to the easier ones. But when you explain it, I can calculate it , as you do and understand it, because of the good way you explain it. Thanks!

  • @OliviaAndreoli
    @OliviaAndreoli Před rokem +102

    For the 8's, I did (8!!)/(8 * 8), because 8!! = 8*6*4*2 = 384, and 384/64 = 6. I definitely brute-forced the 10's with some somewhat dubious logic, doing (10!!!!!!! + 10!!!!!!!)/10 to get (30 + 30)/10 = 6 XD

    • @yehor_ivanov
      @yehor_ivanov Před rokem +7

      just another one for 8 8 8, for a sample:
      (square(8 + 8)) = 4; 4! = 24
      24/8 = 6)
      seems pretty easy, once come up with, and effective here)
      though, the ones in t' video r too, surely)
      Cheers

    • @rs5256
      @rs5256 Před rokem +8

      @@yehor_ivanov 24/8 = 3 not 6. You'd have to say:
      square(8+8) = 4
      -> 4! = 24
      -> 24/8 = 3
      -> 3! = 6.

    • @cythism8106
      @cythism8106 Před rokem +5

      @@yehor_ivanov say sqrt(x) not square(x). It almost makes it look like you're saying (x)^2.

    • @324_Sli
      @324_Sli Před rokem +3

      Just this,
      8+8=16 aight?
      16 root=4
      4 root=2
      8-2=6

    • @los-lobos
      @los-lobos Před rokem +1

      You used 4 10’s

  • @Kriegter
    @Kriegter Před 2 lety +1799

    Damn the maths developers really need to nerf this new "factorial" boost

    • @gjproductions9337
      @gjproductions9337 Před 2 lety +182

      They said they will in update 3.14

    • @CrazyAsians123
      @CrazyAsians123 Před 2 lety +20

      @@gjproductions9337 finally

    • @slaughterhouse5585
      @slaughterhouse5585 Před 2 lety +37

      @@gjproductions9337 Mmmm! Pumpkin 3.1416.

    • @benr77
      @benr77 Před 2 lety +15

      noooo! now I can magically make almost any equation just work

    • @gorgonix2264
      @gorgonix2264 Před 2 lety +7

      I actually used multifactorials for 2 of the solutions. Surprising that that was the first thing that came to mind for me. And yet I still used cosine for the 0s.

  • @imonsanyal
    @imonsanyal Před 5 lety +3744

    If you can't use "³√", using "√" should also be against the rules because it is just the short form of "²√".

    • @Stubbari
      @Stubbari Před 5 lety +201

      And 4 is a short form of 1+1+1+1. With your locig the whole problem is impossible.

    • @imonsanyal
      @imonsanyal Před 5 lety +805

      @@Stubbari you're not making any sense.

    • @Stubbari
      @Stubbari Před 5 lety +108

      @@imonsanyal Radical symbol doesn't have a digit "2" in it.
      N:th root is written with a corresponding digit.
      This js enough "√" you don't need to add a digit "2" to make it square root.
      With your logic 2+2+2=6 is just a shorter version of 1+1+1+1+1+1=6 which includes 6 new digits.

    • @imonsanyal
      @imonsanyal Před 5 lety +426

      @@Stubbari I know... but it is the short form of *²√* and the rule clearly states that you can't introduce any new digits. *√* and *²√* are the same thing and hence cannot be used.

    • @jhndvdvdd
      @jhndvdvdd Před 5 lety +55

      The thing is sqrt can be used without using any digits, so even though they have the same method like finding the nth root, you did not necessarily used a new number on the square root ,got me?

  • @robertp9297
    @robertp9297 Před 9 měsíci +12

    Hi Presh.
    Even though this video is five years old, it is my first view.
    Again, you've created high-quality, educational content.
    I'm a senior citizen, and I STILL enjoy your videos.
    Thank you.

    • @mjorozco3786
      @mjorozco3786 Před 8 měsíci +6

      this is a high quality good viewer that we need to protect at all costs

  • @Kumra_Podash
    @Kumra_Podash Před rokem +3

    at first it was like impossible, but after you start explaining it, it was like new ideas ware automatically coming into my mind, and I was getting the trick.
    Awesome video!!!

  • @kumarsaurav8885
    @kumarsaurav8885 Před 5 lety +690

    (0!+0!+0!)!=6
    For all the rest:
    (sgn(x)+sgn(x)+sgn(x))!=6

    • @asgarrahmani939
      @asgarrahmani939 Před 4 lety +5

      It is not true

    • @dorondaniel318
      @dorondaniel318 Před 4 lety +59

      @@asgarrahmani939 it is true + we can say for every one of them including zero:
      (sgn(x)!+sgn(x)!+sgn(x)!)!=6
      If your unfamiliar with the sign function you should jnow it returns one if x is positive and minus one if x is negative (and zero if zero)

    • @trabadix
      @trabadix Před 4 lety +5

      @@dorondaniel318 interesante!

    • @bruhbruh1580
      @bruhbruh1580 Před 4 lety +1

      Kumar Saurav or for 6 6 +6 =12 12-6=6

    • @mikel4879
      @mikel4879 Před 4 lety +1

      Kumar S / Because Presh doesn't ask for only natural numbers and you use a function that you have to explain ( you make a new "logic rule" ) then we can make another explanation ( rule, requirement, etc ) :
      let's define de novo the following :
      0=1, 1=2, 2=3....., (n=n+1)
      where n={ 0,1,2,3,4...n+1 }
      and then your solution is a general solution.

  • @kay710
    @kay710 Před 5 lety +1576

    *888 is hardest*
    Me : 6 CIRCLES!!!

  • @kaderen8461
    @kaderen8461 Před rokem +75

    challenge: do the ones with square roots without them, as square roots technically involve other numbers like cube roots do

    • @Jamesdavey358
      @Jamesdavey358 Před rokem +33

      @@JossWainwright huh? If Cube root isn't allowed then square root shouldn't be. Just because you can get away without writing the " ² " dosent mean it isn't there, you just don't write it because it's implied

    • @H0uxdubxston
      @H0uxdubxston Před rokem +23

      @@JossWainwright when we first learned square root we would write the 2. At some point in math they dropped the two. It is there, you just can't see it. It is still introducing a new digit

    • @falling_banana
      @falling_banana Před rokem +3

      @kaderen8461 👍 finally, someone's thinking what i'm thinking

    • @falling_banana
      @falling_banana Před rokem +2

      @@H0uxdubxston exactly

    • @projectmoonsleeperagent
      @projectmoonsleeperagent Před rokem +1

      @@JossWainwright So I can write a square root, but say it’s implied as a cube root and then cube root now counts?

  • @MarcusPereiraRJ
    @MarcusPereiraRJ Před 11 měsíci +2

    This challenge is a classic one in Brazil we learn as younglings. Nice to see it here!

  • @marvelstark3797
    @marvelstark3797 Před 4 lety +1366

    the only part i got confused was at the dont's rule.
    it says it doesnt allow the introduction specific to ³√ but it still using the √ which in my understanding is the same as 2√

    • @Stubbari
      @Stubbari Před 4 lety +43

      @Ro Bert Yeah because CR introduces a new digit "3" while SR doesn't.

    • @videopoetic7101
      @videopoetic7101 Před 3 lety +248

      @@Stubbari You don't have to write it but in SR is number 2 so it's a problem in rules.

    • @Stubbari
      @Stubbari Před 3 lety +41

      @@videopoetic7101 If you don't write it then it doesn't get introduced. Simple as that.
      Or do you know what digits I introduce here: " "?

    • @loganxavier
      @loganxavier Před 3 lety +67

      It said digit, not number. So it is allowed since he wrote the square root. If that rule applied to everything, then multiplication wouldn’t be allowed either because that technically counts as this example: 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 (2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8) And that does add another number, but the rules said digits so it is allowed.

    • @bachlamtung5131
      @bachlamtung5131 Před 3 lety +29

      point is, it’s literally the same, the 2’s implied thus you dont have to actually write a number

  • @gregatherton4688
    @gregatherton4688 Před 3 lety +1238

    Fun fact:
    You can do this for arbitrary n, using ONLY addition, division, and trig identities.
    That's right, without using square root OR factorial.
    All you need is patience. And possibly a mental disorder. Thankfully, I have both!
    One of the trig identities you all likely learned in High School, nestled in with the arcus functions (acos, asin, and atan) is:
    cos(atan(x)) = 1/√(1+x²)
    Therefore, using sec(x) = 1/cos(x), we get:
    sec(atan(x)) = √(1+x²)
    You may see where I'm going with this.
    We know, for any n, that
    (n+n)/n = 2
    Therefore,
    sec(atan((n+n)/n)) = √(1+2²) = √(5)
    and
    sec(atan(sec(atan((n+n)/n))) = √(1+5) = √(6)
    We could continue this until we hit √(9) = 3 and use a factorial to get to 6. But if we've gone this far, do we *really* need to use a factorial? After all, √(36) is right there.
    Therefore, for arbitrary n, I propose the solution that:
    sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan(sec(atan( (n+n)/n )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) = 6
    Plug it into Wolfram|Alpha. You'll see it works.
    And pedants like me can avoid using √ :)

    • @andreaq6529
      @andreaq6529 Před 3 lety +92

      Bro 🤯👍

    • @static3479
      @static3479 Před 3 lety +266

      You’re the type of guy that does his homework on time

    • @sajamily2404
      @sajamily2404 Před 3 lety +9

      😳😳

    • @YSFmemories
      @YSFmemories Před 3 lety +100

      can someone tell me if this guy is legit or trolling?

    • @isjosh8064
      @isjosh8064 Před 3 lety +20

      Who tf even are you?

  • @user-uj5gh3xy7n
    @user-uj5gh3xy7n Před rokem +3

    For 10, i did [Log( 10 ) + Log ( 10 ) + Log ( 10 ) ] ! = 6. Usually log is base 10, so no new digits

    • @Able89535
      @Able89535 Před 7 měsíci +1

      Nice, or we can use use ln or even sqrt directly if we introduce ceiling or flooring

    • @user-uj5gh3xy7n
      @user-uj5gh3xy7n Před 6 měsíci

      @Able89535 yeah but I don't like to use floor or ceiling because they annot be described with regular math.

  • @Functional_Somehow
    @Functional_Somehow Před rokem +1

    I fact-checked this and this is absolutely correct. Good job! 👍

  • @AlbertWang1
    @AlbertWang1 Před 3 lety +787

    Square root is controversial for all these kind of quest, as it's square 2.

    • @ojojojojojoje
      @ojojojojojoje Před 3 lety +33

      my thoughts exactly - I threw it out the window right off the bat, silly me :D And I am not nearly confident enough to toy around with goniometry to get there that way

    • @thebanditterra2917
      @thebanditterra2917 Před 3 lety +10

      Agrees I too thought it was out of bounds and despite having the solutions using it still believe thusly

    • @diablo6250
      @diablo6250 Před 3 lety +12

      @@JossWainwright bruh, do you scan this comment section for this one question?
      if so- *i shall follow you kid*

    • @JLvatron
      @JLvatron Před 3 lety +17

      The rule should clarify you can't introduce other numbers, but numberless symbols are allowed. Like √ .

    • @JLvatron
      @JLvatron Před 3 lety +3

      @@JossWainwright Good point.

  • @friedfries8432
    @friedfries8432 Před 2 lety +921

    Theoretically, you could find the derivative of every single number, which gets you to 0 0 0, and then factorial each of them to get 1 1 1, then add them together to get 3 and factorial it to get 6. This could work for all of the problems.
    For example,
    4 4 4 = 6
    (d/dx 4) (d/dx 4) (d/dx 4) = 6
    0 0 0 = 6
    0! 0! 0! = 6
    1 1 1 = 6
    (1+1+1)! = 6
    3! = 6
    Since the derivative of any constant is always 0, we can use this approach on any number to get 6, hence we could have solved all of the problems in the same exact way.

    • @clavio3082
      @clavio3082 Před 2 lety +119

      haaaaaaaaa, this is the equivalent to the infinite money glitch hahhahah

    • @anshsharma2652
      @anshsharma2652 Před 2 lety +12

      Bravo!

    • @user-ec6wu4hv7l
      @user-ec6wu4hv7l Před 2 lety +7

      невероятно, я восхищен

    • @darkdesmond6706
      @darkdesmond6706 Před 2 lety +18

      Big Brain Time

    • @ronaldanderson4995
      @ronaldanderson4995 Před 2 lety +25

      I resorted to something like this to solve 8. I used delta function to convert each number to zero. Then I realized it works for all but 0.

  • @Foxy_Fan1200
    @Foxy_Fan1200 Před 9 měsíci +1

    I learned what a factorial is because of this video!I love learning new things!

  • @robertorodriguez5226
    @robertorodriguez5226 Před rokem +1

    What a fantastic way of teaching operations. It is inspired.

  • @mrchoon2010
    @mrchoon2010 Před 3 lety +819

    He said the word "factorial" and I knew I was in over my head, haha

    • @is1hair
      @is1hair Před 3 lety +137

      Don’t be intimidated! Factorial is *extremely* easy to understand. It’s literally just the multiplication of every whole number before x as well as x itself. Ex: 6! = 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2. That’s it lmao, you’ll grasp it quickly.

    • @mrchoon2010
      @mrchoon2010 Před 3 lety +26

      @@is1hair Yeh, I went and googled it, thanks

    • @ayushgangwaropz1088
      @ayushgangwaropz1088 Před 3 lety +18

      @@is1hair thank u bro .. it help me a lot.. and prevent to Google it?!!!

    • @NERONRR
      @NERONRR Před 3 lety +22

      in my opinion i dont think he factorial should have been alowed as it is not deemed as a common mathematical concept. No one is going to be like "oh yeah I have 6 factorial dollars"

    • @mrchoon2010
      @mrchoon2010 Před 3 lety +8

      @@NERONRR Can you solve them without factorials?

  • @maxbrandt1324
    @maxbrandt1324 Před 4 lety +156

    3:29 (9 + 9)/ sqr(9)

    • @AwesomeCreatorBen
      @AwesomeCreatorBen Před 4 lety +3

      I did that too.
      Sorry im late to the comment section

    • @nicolasrozenberg5209
      @nicolasrozenberg5209 Před 4 lety

      You cannot use sqr(9)

    • @faradaykhaleesi877
      @faradaykhaleesi877 Před 4 lety

      @@nicolasrozenberg5209 do you even know what sqr() is?

    • @30IYouTube
      @30IYouTube Před 4 lety

      Of course that equals six, because sqr(9) = 3, and (9 + 9) = 18, and 18 / 3 = 6, and square root doesn’t require a number.

    • @nicolasrozenberg5209
      @nicolasrozenberg5209 Před 4 lety +2

      @@faradaykhaleesi877 Sorry, I didn't watch the video. It shouldn't have been used though, because sqr() is not an operator, it is a function that represents the root of index 2 of a certain number. And that involves implicitly using number 2. The task is not explained correctly

  • @CT-pi2gl
    @CT-pi2gl Před rokem +4

    Some people might say sqrt symbol should not be allowed, as it is really introducing ²√ or ^0.5. And by extension as shown in the "8" example you are allowing all root powers of 2. I wonder if some of these would be solvable in that case?

  • @dablitter5719
    @dablitter5719 Před rokem +2

    this is one of the few puzzles i could actually do and it was actually pretty fun

  • @kiancroxall2099
    @kiancroxall2099 Před 4 lety +531

    Literally the only two I’m smart enough for:
    2+2+2=6
    And
    6+6-6=6
    😂🤣😂

  • @sandrasweeney798
    @sandrasweeney798 Před rokem

    Wow! This is your best yet. I love your videos.

  • @gtaserisiturkiye
    @gtaserisiturkiye Před 11 měsíci +5

    If the floor function is used, it will be valid for all positive integers. If the absolute value function is also used, it will also be valid for negative integers. Since we are using the floor function, it will be valid for all real numbers. It will even work with complex numbers. Here are some examples:
    floor(sqrt(11))*floor(sqrt(11))-floor(sqrt(11))=6
    (|-1|+|-1|+|-1|)!=6
    floor(pi)*floor(pi)-floor(pi)=6
    (|i|+|i|+|i|)!=6

    • @Jan_Heckmann
      @Jan_Heckmann Před 8 měsíci +1

      Or you use the Cardinality, and it does not even have to be Numbers at all. Like (|{X}|+|{X}|+|{X}|)!=6 for all complex Numbers or anything else.

    • @M3lodicDeathmetal
      @M3lodicDeathmetal Před 7 měsíci

      Actually that's true, repeatedly take the square root and floor in the end to reduce the problem to 1+1+1 and solved for any number.

  • @germanandosov2586
    @germanandosov2586 Před 5 lety +698

    One more solution with zeros (it's mine before watching this video):
    (cos(0) + cos(0) + cos(0))! = 6

  • @horsesh8e
    @horsesh8e Před 4 lety +444

    The whole is about solving to 3 and taking its factorial.

  • @arnabchoudhury2651
    @arnabchoudhury2651 Před rokem

    Great solution... your way of thinking is just awesome.

  • @Courruptedmantealpink
    @Courruptedmantealpink Před 5 měsíci

    Thanks for creating this!

  • @Tasarran
    @Tasarran Před rokem +346

    I never even thought of factorial as one of the operations I could use, but I'm happy to say as soon as you brought it up, the ones I was struggling with fell into place in my brain!

    • @Numerixx
      @Numerixx Před rokem

      As soon as I saw this, I thought 0 0 0 would be (0!+0!+0!)! bruh

  • @minafawzy5086
    @minafawzy5086 Před 4 lety +503

    To use 10 10 10 there is another solution
    (log(10*10*10))!

    • @Sid37612
      @Sid37612 Před 3 lety +27

      Awesome dude!
      That's an innovative solution!

    • @ExploitRX
      @ExploitRX Před 3 lety +12

      @20 Subs Before Tomorrow? I think, he mean lg (log with base 10)

    • @andsalomoni
      @andsalomoni Před 3 lety +11

      @20 Subs Before Tomorrow? A piece of trunk.

    • @manuelmontana2827
      @manuelmontana2827 Před 3 lety +20

      What is log? Baby don't hurt me~

    • @daapdary
      @daapdary Před 3 lety +21

      For 10 10 10 = 6, I did: ( log(10) + log(10) + log(10) ) ! = 6

  • @KyleDoveGaming
    @KyleDoveGaming Před rokem +2

    In the beginning you had a rule of not introducing cubed roots because that counts as adding a number. However, you use square roots in the majority of your answers. I'm sure you are aware that a square root can be written as X^(1/2), which if we go by that notation, it makes the use of square root against the rules that you put forth in the beginning.

    • @katarsiz2
      @katarsiz2 Před 4 měsíci

      Then you just don't go by that notation and simply use √ symbol.
      Multiplication N*K can, too, be written as N+N+...N+N with K terms, which obviously involves writing more digits, which is forbidden. But we take as granted that multiplication is allowed, therefore we can conclude that simple "existence of different notation that does include more digits" is not enough to forbid an operation by these rules.

  • @sumanjangid1250
    @sumanjangid1250 Před 10 měsíci +8

    According to the rule 1. at the start of the video, we can not also use square root as it involves the number 2 .
    But considering the problem,
    we are bound to use that otherwise a solution won't be possible .
    By the way it was a cool problem.
    Thanks for uploading.❤

    • @samkhan-lu9ww
      @samkhan-lu9ww Před 9 měsíci

      you don't need the two for square root even though you can put it there

    • @danielattema8596
      @danielattema8596 Před 9 měsíci +1

      That's what I thinking, so I checked the notes to see if anyone else saw the inconstancy. The square root symbol is short hand without the 2. So, like the cubed root of x can be written as x^-3, the square root of x can be written as x^-2.

  • @derekchase5462
    @derekchase5462 Před 3 lety +215

    Reading that first equation very excitedly
    “Zero! Plus zero! Plus zero! (!!!)”

    • @TheIvasyl
      @TheIvasyl Před rokem

      @@user-SG717 what's 230 - 220 x 0.5?
      You probably wouldn't believe me, but the answer is 5!

    • @TheIvasyl
      @TheIvasyl Před rokem

      @@user-SG717 just because you're right doesn't mean I'm wrong

    • @TheIvasyl
      @TheIvasyl Před rokem

      @@user-SG717 it's 5!

    • @TheIvasyl
      @TheIvasyl Před rokem

      @@user-SG717 5! = 120

  • @SteveSharps
    @SteveSharps Před 5 lety +2180

    lol nice try. square root is technically a short hand for 2√ ... and the suggestion of simple math operation is also quite misleading. Most of people would exclude factorial.

    • @ellanvanninalde
      @ellanvanninalde Před 5 lety +145

      And logarithms, since (log10+log10+log10)!=6

    • @MajaxPlop
      @MajaxPlop Před 5 lety +7

      Steven Song take ln0 so
      I know for e ;)

    • @ArcticFoxWaffles
      @ArcticFoxWaffles Před 5 lety +75

      Most people wouldn't know about factorials

    • @xzZZZ799
      @xzZZZ799 Před 5 lety +2

      so what do we call a root symbol alone and how does it work

    • @user-ob5hj5vn8c
      @user-ob5hj5vn8c Před 5 lety +28

      Yah Root 2 is basically X ^ (1/2)

  • @mariusvr
    @mariusvr Před rokem +1

    There is a neat solution for the 8 8 8 using thermial. N thermial, noted n?, is defined to be 1+2+3+...+n, analogously to the factorial definition, but for sums instead of multiplication. Then 8? = 36 and one can easily do sqrt ((8+8-8)?) = 6

  • @alexmark6580
    @alexmark6580 Před rokem +1

    Was able to do all of them except 0, I forgot that 0! = 1. This is a fun puzzle exercise.

  • @hamraj7231
    @hamraj7231 Před 5 lety +598

    for 999 just flip the nines upside down

  • @1ups_15
    @1ups_15 Před 3 lety +347

    each time you showed the solution I was like "how didn't I think of that?!!" haha

    • @NikhilTheGreatest
      @NikhilTheGreatest Před 3 lety +7

      Same with me😂😂

    • @aubreyundi
      @aubreyundi Před 2 lety +1

      In the instructions you said you cannot introduce any new digit, but can you explain how the factorial is not an introduction of new digits.. cause 3!= 3×2×1

    • @huyxiun2085
      @huyxiun2085 Před rokem +6

      @@aubreyundi
      Sure, both introducing ! and square root are actually introducing new digits. But since there is a code for those which does not imply WRITING the digit, it's considered valid. It annoyed me too at first, but then, i realized there probably was no other way and that the problem needed that "trick".
      I fully understand you, the problem lies in the phrase "do not introduce new digit". Many people would immediately understand that "code without explicit digit, even if implicit, are fine". Others, like you and me, would immediately consider "implicit digits aren't allowed either, thus square root and factorial can't be allowed".
      I'm actually pretty sure most of the people are in the second situation.
      However most of those still are able to switch back to the first, by realizing the problem is impossible without this assumption.
      Don't be too extreme on implicit vs. explicit. There is not good solution. Both are always possible, and can always be extreme (go too far).
      If you assume implicit should be always the rule, then you can never solve anything. Because if you keep pushing in that direction, you never have a satisfying "proof". Nothing can be proved expect "cogito ergo sum", and stricly applying implicit rules means everything else is irrelevant. They you can just go back to bed and die.
      It's true with the other exageration. Explicit is ALWAYS possible, you can invent a new way of writing, a new code, which would make the exercice always super easy. But then everything becomes irrelevant too.
      Sure playing around the definition and the limits of a problem is fine... but first you need to accept the limits and definition, solve the problem WITHIN this conditions, and ONLY THEN you can play around with the rules and try to bend them.
      The big problem here isn't mathematics. It's understand what (most of) people would agree too.
      Not being able to understand what most of the others do or think is actually very frequent. It's also unfuriating, frustrating, because everybody around think you are odd while you did nothing wrong. Your interpretation is just different.
      It's fine being different, keep at it.
      But keep in mind that human beings progress A LOT by sharing knowledge and understandings. Thus what you need to do is to work on that too (and probably first). Then you can be different AND able to understand others, play with them, and learn from them.

    • @TheRenegade...
      @TheRenegade... Před rokem +3

      @@aubreyundi Technically multiplication is adding new digits because it's repeated addition

    • @memebaltan
      @memebaltan Před rokem

      @@aubreyundi a*b=a*a*a... b times
      ah yes, maeth

  • @cliffordmorris6091
    @cliffordmorris6091 Před 2 měsíci

    You are doing what teachers have been doing for years getting children to think about different ways of arriving at answers. Eg Using partition to find all the ways we can make a number like 24. Maths does not have to involve roots and factorial so can be used at a simpler level. It is interesting to challenge people who believe maths is about right answers by giving the answer and requiring all the ways to get to it instead.Indeed most real life problems are open to innovative solutions and there is not an answer but a set of possible solutions and the requirement to provide often cost effective ones using an iterative approach towards the best one.

  • @ali94hn
    @ali94hn Před rokem +1

    For 8, I did √(8+(8)/(8)))! (the square root symbol is supposed to be over everything EXCEPT the factorial symbol) which gives us a result of 6
    8+8/8 is 9, then I take the square root of that, which is 3, and then I put it into factorial
    EDIT: I just realized that's your second solution

  • @JianJiaHe
    @JianJiaHe Před 5 lety +330

    I have a neat solution for every positive integer N of the N N N = 6 problem. My solution is (log(sqrt(N), N*sqrt(N)))! = 6, where log is the logarithm, for example log(10, 1000) = 3.
    Took me 10 minutes to come up with this, amusing puzzle by the way.

    • @RGP_Maths
      @RGP_Maths Před 5 lety +22

      That's brilliant and deserves more attention than it's got so far!

    • @NestorAbad
      @NestorAbad Před 5 lety +5

      What an awesome and elegant solution!

    • @donaldasayers
      @donaldasayers Před 5 lety +35

      I love it when someone just kills a puzzle.

    • @boggless2771
      @boggless2771 Před 5 lety +3

      I hope this counts!

    • @pentaxian7455
      @pentaxian7455 Před 5 lety +9

      brilliant: it gives allways 3! (log(sqrt(N), N*sqrt(N)))! = log(N*sgrt(N))/log(sgrt(N)=(log(N)+log(sgrt(N))/(log(sgrt(N)=(log(N)/log(sgrt(N)+1)! =(2*log(N)/log(N)+1)!=3! . You are jenius men!

  • @gamejunk2707
    @gamejunk2707 Před 5 lety +535

    3:30 NEIN NEIN NEIN

  • @theunknownspeedrunner276
    @theunknownspeedrunner276 Před 10 měsíci +1

    I don't know if logarithms and exponentials are allowed, if they are, I might have found a way to break this problem: we know that ln(e) = 1, and we can add or substract an unlimited amount of these, since they don't use any digits.
    So 4 4 4 could be solved this way: 4+4-4+ln(e)+ln(e) = 6
    This works with all integers not only the one from 0 to 10, and frankly you could do anything you want with the 3 numbers, as long as the result is an integer, and you balance it with the appropriate number of ln(e).
    This however makes the problem useless and a lot less fun.

  • @AstroGalaxyTCG
    @AstroGalaxyTCG Před 9 měsíci +1

    "!" Is just broken in mathematics 💀 bro almost solo'd the secret quest

  • @Santhosh22NA
    @Santhosh22NA Před 5 lety +126

    You always have solution in mathematics when u stuck.
    "Let's assume 0 0 0 = 6"

  • @ItsJustEthan1
    @ItsJustEthan1 Před 4 lety +340

    Ayyy best solution for 0
    ( cos(0) + cos(0) + cos(0) )!
    Edit: Somebody already did this solution :(

    • @MaxMathGames
      @MaxMathGames Před 3 lety +8

      👍👍👍awesome solution dude, perfect .

    • @ck3908
      @ck3908 Před 3 lety +2

      0 to the 0 power added three times then factorial.... = 6

    • @snirpleinad8592
      @snirpleinad8592 Před 3 lety

      Your incorrect. cos (0) = 1, so ( cos (0) + cos (0) + cos (0) ) = 3

    • @lAlexLunl
      @lAlexLunl Před 3 lety +16

      @@snirpleinad8592 he wrote "!" in the end. So its (1 + 1 + 1)! = 3*2*1 = 6.

    • @rohankorale6381
      @rohankorale6381 Před 3 lety +5

      @@ck3908 ahh, not exactly as 0^0 is indeterminate form 🤷‍♂️

  • @upsidedownumop3psdn225
    @upsidedownumop3psdn225 Před 11 měsíci

    I got 8-logbase(sqrt(8),8) for 8s and
    10-logbase(sqrt(sqrt(10)),10) for 10s.
    Great video!

  • @Rinneganpein389295
    @Rinneganpein389295 Před 5 lety +444

    |{x,x,x}|! = 6 for all integers x between 0 and 10. Fight me.

    • @Anastasia___.
      @Anastasia___. Před 5 lety +11

      Actually x can be any number :D
      Smart! :)

    • @timduffy8935
      @timduffy8935 Před 5 lety +23

      Underrated comment. This is the best solution.

    • @restablex
      @restablex Před 5 lety +5

      So... Is " |{....}| " The math notation for counting an array?... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

    • @timduffy8935
      @timduffy8935 Před 5 lety +45

      @@restablex Braces { } denote a set. Elements in a set are separated by commas, so {1, 2, 3} is the set containing the elements 1, 2, and 3. The absolute value sign | | here is called the cardinality in set theory, and evaluates to the number of elements in a set. So |{3, 5, 27}| = 3. And then lastly we take the factorial of 3 which gives 6.
      The coolest part about this solution is that the elements can be absolutely anything. They don't even have to be numbers! |{duck, chicken, goose}|! = 6.
      Edit: As mina86 pointed out, technically a set cannot have duplicates of the same element. However I believe we could consider the numbers to be a sequence, which allows duplicates.

    • @restablex
      @restablex Před 5 lety +3

      @@timduffy8935 thanks. So, cardinality is 3 even when the element is repeated? Just want to be sure that |{a,a,a}| is 3 and not 1.

  • @rogeronslow1498
    @rogeronslow1498 Před 5 lety +580

    You never explained in detail what was allowed or gave an example. I had no idea what I could do.

    • @SkullDraker
      @SkullDraker Před 5 lety +111

      funny enough you can't use cubic root of a number but can use the square? under what logic? lul

    • @prenomenomine9355
      @prenomenomine9355 Před 5 lety +19

      @@SkullDraker he said it. You can't involve new numbers. You don't need numbers to do a square root since you don't write the 2.

    • @danieljared2307
      @danieljared2307 Před 5 lety +47

      @@prenomenomine9355 but square root is power to 1/2.. basically new number is there.

    • @SkullDraker
      @SkullDraker Před 5 lety +11

      @@prenomenomine9355 yes cause it's implicite, you don't NEED to write cause it is known, like that the sun is hot...

    • @prenomenomine9355
      @prenomenomine9355 Před 5 lety +1

      @@SkullDraker any operation can be expressed with more digits. +3 is just like +1+1+1

  • @birdlegscass
    @birdlegscass Před rokem

    3 is truly wielding that exclamation point like a mighty blade today

  • @peterhuroiye408
    @peterhuroiye408 Před 8 měsíci +1

    So happy to say I found them all without cheating ! The 8 one was the hardest

  • @chaincat33
    @chaincat33 Před 4 lety +335

    "common mathematical functions that don't introduce new digits"
    >Uses factorial, extremely uncommon, albeit simple function
    >Uses square root but cube root and exponents are not allowed

    • @Simplifier123
      @Simplifier123 Před 4 lety +16

      By saying "common" I think he referred to "known"..
      And about the factorial being legal but exponents not, I think its because when you exponent a number you can manipulate the exponent itself
      (for ex: 2,3 etc.) but when using the factorial you cant do that because its a fixed function which only depends on the number you put factorial on
      and in this problem the numbers are fixed.
      For the root being legal and not the cube, I think thats because of the root being a basic function and using cube or anything else is just
      manipulating the basic function to be a different one.
      Thats my opinion though..

    • @3possumsinatrenchcoat
      @3possumsinatrenchcoat Před 4 lety +8

      Exactly my thoughts, and seems I'm far from the only one.

    • @jaakezzz_G
      @jaakezzz_G Před 4 lety +10

      John Jose cube root is not a manipulation of square root. Rooting a number requires a digit. It’s like saying that exponent 2 is a manipulation of exponent 1, it’s not, it’s just a different power exponent.

    • @Simplifier123
      @Simplifier123 Před 4 lety +4

      @@jaakezzz_G you didnt get my point.. my point is that factorial us a fixed function, just like adding or substracting or multiplying.
      In this example you need to use functions that you cant change them.
      Exponents however, you can change the exponent however you like.. 2,3,5 etc. Same for root you can do sqrt, cube or anything else but factorial depends on the number you do factorial on, you cant change the factroial function to work in a different way as you desire.

    • @archeosm8606
      @archeosm8606 Před 4 lety +9

      The one that stood out to me was taking a square root of the square root, that’s basically what he said was against the rules

  • @danzirulez
    @danzirulez Před 3 lety +275

    nice, although one could argue that sq root 'theoretically' introduces the digit 2 into the equations. it is a defined symbol of sq root. Same way the 3rd root is not necessarily an introduction of the digit 3, it's a mere symbol, but a good puzzle nonetheless :)

    • @XariksBeatbox
      @XariksBeatbox Před 2 lety +40

      Actually this argument wins, since sq root of any number is that number raised to the power 1/2

    • @manawer720
      @manawer720 Před 2 lety +37

      You could say the same with the factorial symbol, you are adding numbers and multiplying them even though you don't see them. I think that the puzzle's goal is to only have 3 visible numbers, and make a 6 out of it

    • @Dark_Voice
      @Dark_Voice Před 2 lety +4

      @@JossWainwright Tbh, it is totally "I wanna catch you with the rules" BUT the 2 is simply there as much as 3 is in the cubic one. The cubic sign and the square sign are just 2 signs that indicate 2 different functions. Either both or none. Otherwise, you are just being a ahole as the puzzle giver and trying to be a smartass. (Which I think is still wrong because square root still means 2 whether you write it or not - you included another integer.)

    • @Dark_Voice
      @Dark_Voice Před 2 lety +14

      @@JossWainwright I read milions of posts in the chain above. You're incorrect. Its simply that. You dont write it because of redundancy but its there whether you like it or not. Also, by proving you mean you will say to me that its exactly how you think it is.

    • @Dark_Voice
      @Dark_Voice Před 2 lety +10

      @@JossWainwright Whatever you say. The number 2 is assumed always there if you dont write it. It becomes invisible 2. The fact the video rules out 3√x which is x^(1/3) [the number 3 you can take like a part of the sign, not as an integer because the whole 3√x is a number, not just the 3] but leaves √x which is x^(1/2) is just trying to be a smartass and not working. The 2 is there just you dont write it to save time because everyone understands what you mean. End of story.

  • @evanfishsticks8010
    @evanfishsticks8010 Před 6 měsíci

    I got all but 10, so I spent twenty minutes dicking around on my calculator until I learned that cos(10!) = 1, so I did (cos(10!) + cos(10!) + cos10!)! = 6. Your solution is much simpler and more elegant.

  • @CorghVosc
    @CorghVosc Před 5 lety +1107

    square rooting introduces a 2 into the equation. sqrt shouldn't be allowed

    • @lepassant478
      @lepassant478 Před 5 lety +41

      True

    • @wyn2118
      @wyn2118 Před 5 lety +103

      But when you write the symbol of a square root you dont really write the digit 2 down, so technically it still works

    • @MataMaticas
      @MataMaticas Před 5 lety +42

      Well, it is a little tricky because I can not see any "two" in the square root symbol. Quite clever, indeed.

    • @michaelmullin106
      @michaelmullin106 Před 5 lety +13

      I don’t think you could do it with numbers 8, 9, or 10 without the sqrt

    • @rgazsy8366
      @rgazsy8366 Před 5 lety +5

      Mike Disney if it can not be done with out it then it can not be done. The floor method someone else mentioned is beyond my comprehension

  • @bro_vega_1412
    @bro_vega_1412 Před 4 lety +190

    According to rule 1,you can use d/dx,and d/dx will make any constant 0,then you know what to do.

  • @fernandoalonsooliveira6090

    Consider n as a generic Real number. If you take the limit of x/x when x tends to n, the result is always 1, whe then can get to the 1 1 1 = 6 case, and solve the puzzle for any number, even if it is negative, has several digits and decimals.

  • @u.s.4129
    @u.s.4129 Před rokem +2

    A nice one, thanks Presh

  • @jachpi1080
    @jachpi1080 Před 3 lety +400

    6:16 can you use (cos(0) + cos(0) + cos(0))! = 6 ? I´m not adding any digits, but I don´t know if in this case you can do it...

    • @m_th_m_t_cs
      @m_th_m_t_cs Před 3 lety +19

      good idea!

    • @preyunknown1820
      @preyunknown1820 Před 3 lety +76

      cos is not operation it is FUNCTION

    • @jachpi1080
      @jachpi1080 Před 3 lety +34

      @@preyunknown1820 oh sugar lumps yur right. However, it was a nice try.

    • @jachpi1080
      @jachpi1080 Před 3 lety +12

      I think it should count, but, welp, rules are... rules I guess? (I think it should count xd)

    • @preyunknown1820
      @preyunknown1820 Před 3 lety +1

      @@jachpi1080 yeah nt tho

  • @LasTCursE69
    @LasTCursE69 Před 5 lety +497

    Wait isn't common operations just "+" "-" "/" "x" ? What's with the square roots and factorials? xD

    • @ThumbsTup
      @ThumbsTup Před 5 lety +31

      Have you ever been to school?

    • @kaladin6199
      @kaladin6199 Před 5 lety +116

      i partially agree i think that square roots are ok but i don't think that factorials count as simple common operations

    • @LasTCursE69
      @LasTCursE69 Před 5 lety +22

      @@ThumbsTup Yeah.. have you??

    • @ThumbsTup
      @ThumbsTup Před 5 lety +4

      @@LasTCursE69 sorry, I misunderstood the question for a sec, my mistake. And, yes, I have

    • @LasTCursE69
      @LasTCursE69 Před 5 lety +34

      @@JossWainwright It isn't about the solution of the puzzle.. It's about how they phrase the rules and the question..

  • @theraven749
    @theraven749 Před 7 měsíci +2

    we also had this challenge but with another number in 6th grade, and we weren't allowed to use factorials or square roots since factorials are just like introducing numbers with 3! as 3x2x1 except for 1! which doesn't really do anything. Square roots are like cube roots, but a two. However this challenge is almost unsolvable without square roots and factorials. This challenge/puzzle is so fun to do and I like your explanations :)

    • @Archy_The-Wizard
      @Archy_The-Wizard Před 6 měsíci

      not sure I agree with factorial introducing new numbers, I would then argue that '+' introduces new numbers as putting it between two '2' introduces a '4'

    • @Arcessitor
      @Arcessitor Před 5 měsíci

      @@Archy_The-WizardFactorials literally turn 0 into 1. How is that not introducing a new number?

  • @lebeccthecomputer6158
    @lebeccthecomputer6158 Před 4 lety +47

    The 8’s one is actually really easy once you realize that if you can make it equal to nine you’re good:
    8+8/8=9. Square root and factorial

    • @rperm834
      @rperm834 Před 2 lety

      So it is {√[8+(8/8)]}!

  • @ari998
    @ari998 Před 3 lety +149

    For 8, I use the following equation: ((square root (8+8))!/8)! =6
    explanation:
    8+8 equal 16, square root of 16 is 4, factorial of 4 is 24, divided by 8 equal 3, and then factorial of 3 is 6

    • @-.a
      @-.a Před 2 lety +4

      you can't use cube root, which means you shouldn't be able to use square root either

    • @zaqcarson2875
      @zaqcarson2875 Před 2 lety +1

      @@-.a No, dude. That would be the fourth root of x. You can only build (power of 2) roots out of square roots.

    • @alexkelley8342
      @alexkelley8342 Před 2 lety +1

      just use (8/8 + 8/8 + 8/8)! = 6

    • @1987Videolover
      @1987Videolover Před 2 lety +5

      @@alexkelley8342 cant... because it only allow to use 3 digit not 6 like yours

    • @MarcoOS05
      @MarcoOS05 Před rokem

      8 is as easy as number 10, but in 8 you add instead of subtract (square root ( 8 + ( 8 / 8))! =6

  • @ValKS-0
    @ValKS-0 Před rokem +2

    your sol. for 10 10 10 = 6
    was sqrt(10-10/10)!
    the same way you could just do 8 8 8 = 6
    as sqrt(8+8/8)! = 6

  • @RafaelVogel
    @RafaelVogel Před rokem +1

    8 can be done following the 10 approach, making a 9 (8+8/8) than square root turning it into 3 than factorial it, giving 6: ((8+8/8)^(½))!

  • @Perezafer8
    @Perezafer8 Před 4 lety +437

    On 10 i did:
    (lg 10 + lg 10 + lg 10)!
    just another way to do it

    • @RB-cl8tc
      @RB-cl8tc Před 4 lety +31

      @Govinda Solanki Vlogs how about (ceil(log(8))+ceil(log(8))+ceil(log(8)))! :O

    • @marcoasturias8520
      @marcoasturias8520 Před 4 lety +45

      If ypu exclude log, you should also exclude sqrt, both have a intrinsic number to the operation

    • @faraonzeu9462
      @faraonzeu9462 Před 4 lety

      @Bjjs you can use

    • @maithreebogoda8824
      @maithreebogoda8824 Před 4 lety +4

      When u include lg you automatic include log base 10. You can't include extra digits

    • @mariush.215
      @mariush.215 Před 4 lety +12

      ​@@RB-cl8tc and how about:
      ( sin(8!)! + sin(8!)! + sin(8!)! )! = 6
      8! = 40320
      sin(40320) = 0
      0! = 1
      1+1+1 = 3
      3! = 6
      voila, a hard way to solve it! :D
      (I figured it out myself)

  • @1q5
    @1q5 Před 5 lety +291

    Anyone else get 2+2+2 and then feel really proud of themselves?

    • @ElectroGaming5
      @ElectroGaming5 Před 4 lety

      Seb most of the comments are nerds lol

    • @JamesCPotter13
      @JamesCPotter13 Před 4 lety +6

      I got 2 × 2 + 2 and overcomplicated things.

    • @extremenugget3658
      @extremenugget3658 Před 4 lety

      Shut up, using bad language is prohibited.
      Please refrain from such use of language, as it may result in ban
      (SOORY UTUBE ME SMOLL)

    • @ofcrgry
      @ofcrgry Před 4 lety

      2! ^ 2! + 2!

  • @draganminic4928
    @draganminic4928 Před 10 měsíci

    The first derivative of a constant is zero. So for any real number, X, we can solve X X X = 6 by writing a "prime" sign after each X - which means the first derivative of each X, which is zero. Thus we reduce each X X X = 6 problem, to 0 0 0 = 6.

  • @hopelessutopian
    @hopelessutopian Před rokem +1

    Dang. I considered "log" a common math operation, so my solution for 8 8 8 = 6 was:
    8 - log(8) / log(sqrt(8))
    Which I didn't even think would work out until I just tried it, but it essentially captures the invisible 2 from the sqrt operation. I was proud of that one.
    And of course my 10 10 10 = 6 solution was
    (log(10) + log(10) + log(10))! = 6, since like sqrt, log is implicitly base 10 (with ln having base e). Probably should have listed out the acceptable operations explicitly in the video. Writing out all of your assumptions in tedious detail is the true Mathematicians Trick! :P

  • @chitrakshsinha9007
    @chitrakshsinha9007 Před 5 lety +232

    I have another way for 4 4 4 = 6. It is
    4+4-√4.

  • @freewing3964
    @freewing3964 Před 3 lety +52

    for 10 10 10, i just took the log of 10 which =1, then added them up and took a factorial.

    • @eriklagergren7124
      @eriklagergren7124 Před 2 lety +1

      "Clever girl"

    • @createyourownfuture5410
      @createyourownfuture5410 Před 2 lety

      But log 10 (10) introduces a new number

    • @davisatdavis1
      @davisatdavis1 Před 2 lety

      @@createyourownfuture5410 not if you use natural logarithm.

    • @freewing3964
      @freewing3964 Před 2 lety +9

      @@createyourownfuture5410 Log base 10 is implied, same as the two in a square root. If you can use one, you can use the other.

    • @createyourownfuture5410
      @createyourownfuture5410 Před 2 lety +1

      @@freewing3964 I see. Log base ten can be written as lg in the same way as log base e can be written as ln.

  • @MantasDabs
    @MantasDabs Před rokem

    i didnt even know what a factorial was so thank you

  • @Sunset553
    @Sunset553 Před rokem +1

    I didn’t realize the point was to make an arithmetic statement. i just saw it as a puzzle to turn it into a true statement, so i drew a horizontal line through each problem, leaving the 6. 6 is 6 . a true mathematical statement. I honestly thought this was the solution and raced back here to see.

  • @nathanisbored
    @nathanisbored Před 5 lety +430

    why is square root allowed? is it because the index isnt shown? would log or ln be allowed for simliar reasons?

    • @SomeGuy712x
      @SomeGuy712x Před 5 lety +43

      I'm okay with allowing square root since that's the default for that symbol without a digit added to it. Also, I did end up using log for the 10 10 10 = 6 problem myself, coming up with log(10 x √(10^10)) = 6.

    • @paulkennedy8701
      @paulkennedy8701 Před 5 lety +7

      Yes. Log and ln would be allowed if it's the natural log, since they are written without using an extra digit. Logs to any other base, where a digit needs to be written, would not.

    • @JohnDixon
      @JohnDixon Před 5 lety +11

      This problem is a test of our current mathematical symbols, so anything that doesn't explicitly use a digit in its symbol is fair game.
      The only non-numerical symbols that are usually excluded from problems like this are ones that would make the problems too easy or give some sort of "universal solution" that works for all numbers (e.g. the floor and ceiling functions).

    • @connorhorman
      @connorhorman Před 5 lety +1

      It has been noted that floor(x) and ceil(x) are fair game. Also hi nathanisbored

    • @luisaguinaga9563
      @luisaguinaga9563 Před 5 lety +2

      Agree I did not use the squares. but I did not solve for 8, 9 or 10. I also tougth that the square root was not allowed

  • @priyenswiss2002
    @priyenswiss2002 Před 4 lety +870

    3:29 Adolf Hitler joined the room.

    • @jaydani1996
      @jaydani1996 Před 4 lety +6

      How?

    • @user-bl1fe9mw7g
      @user-bl1fe9mw7g Před 4 lety +64

      Nain! Nain! Naaaain!!!

    • @heorgegarrison5554
      @heorgegarrison5554 Před 4 lety +73

      N E I N N E I N N E I N

    • @user-fo4ue9mo4z
      @user-fo4ue9mo4z Před 4 lety +4

      Heorge Garrison nine*

    • @heorgegarrison5554
      @heorgegarrison5554 Před 4 lety +17

      ঊᴄᴏᴏʟ ᴘʀᴏ idk if you’re joking or not but 9 in English sounds like nein which is german for no, and Adolf Hitler spoke some form of german and who doesnt love a sprinkle of dark humour :)

  • @thedudehimself69420
    @thedudehimself69420 Před rokem +2

    Thanks to this, I made my own challenge inspired by this, and I have completed it. It is basically X X X = Y, where X and Y are both values between 0 and 10 including 0 and 10

    • @isayahpesulima7297
      @isayahpesulima7297 Před rokem +1

      2×2×2=8

    • @MrEscape314
      @MrEscape314 Před rokem

      Omg that's amazing! You did every number from 0 all the way up to 10!
      That's all numbers up to 3628800, wow! That must have taken months.
      Gotta be careful with punctuation around math.

    • @thedudehimself69420
      @thedudehimself69420 Před rokem

      @@MrEscape314 I only took 2 months. Try solving 0 0 0 = 4. Is is hard.

    • @MrEscape314
      @MrEscape314 Před rokem

      @@thedudehimself69420 I'm trying to figure out other hard ones like 999 999 999 = 1234..
      I was trying to be silly cause you said you did all the numbers from 0 up to 10!

    • @thedudehimself69420
      @thedudehimself69420 Před rokem

      I mean for example 10 * 10/10 = 10 is the highest one I did. Also I did ones that included 11 and 12 as X and Y values as well. 12 * 12/12 = 12

  • @jojotag5344
    @jojotag5344 Před rokem

    I must admit, I fell in love with your videos and solving problems. It's challenging but fun! Just watching your videos without being able to solve the problem makes me realize different approaches to solving these puzzles. You're a great teacher too, it's fairly easy to understand your resolvement, even in harder puzzles.

  • @NestorAbad
    @NestorAbad Před 5 lety +891

    This ones are very amusing!
    In fact, there's another trick to solve any equation of this type, N N N = 6, for any positive integer N: if we consider the "floor" function as an allowed one to use (defined as floor(x)=the biggest integer less than or equal to x, so for example floor(pi)=3 and floor(e)=2), we can always concatenate square roots of N until we have
    1 < sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(...sqrt(N)))...) < 2 ,
    hence floor(sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(...sqrt(N)))...))=1 and we have reduced the problem to "1 1 1 = 6", so adding up the ones and taking factorial, we're done:
    ( floor(sqrt(sqrt(...sqrt(N))...)) + floor(sqrt(sqrt(...sqrt(N))...)) + floor(sqrt(sqrt(...sqrt(N))...)) )! = 6

    • @MindYourDecisions
      @MindYourDecisions  Před 5 lety +82

      Wonderful, I think that is fair game since the floor function is commonly used. And your method also leads to a good mathematical question: why does repeatedly applying the square root lead to a number between 1 and 2? Alternately stated: why does the nth root of a number tend to 1? Here's one proof:
      planetmath.org/limitofnthrootofn

    • @NestorAbad
      @NestorAbad Před 5 lety +16

      That's right! Or even easier: given a fixed N we can always find n big enough so that 1

    • @Tehom1
      @Tehom1 Před 5 lety +15

      Interesting. One could do the same with the ceiling function and get everything into the form (2,2,2).

    • @Mutlauch
      @Mutlauch Před 5 lety +6

      I also used the floor and the ceiling function but because when those equations were introduced to me I also thought that sqrt isn't allowed, I solved them with the e-function and its inverse.
      Greetings from Germany :)

    • @Sam_on_YouTube
      @Sam_on_YouTube Před 5 lety +5

      That's like the 4 4s problem, which can be done for any number using the same method. I forget the exact method, but there is a numberphile video on it.

  • @DasMonitor1
    @DasMonitor1 Před 2 lety +77

    I would say it's a good trick to remember that 3! is because this means if any operation gets you to 3 you have solved the problem. For 10 10 10 and 8 8 8 I also used the fact that 9 is the square of 3 and so getting a result of 9 also immediately yields a solution. Finally any of these numbers can yield their own digit + or - 1 by simply addying or subtracting the quotient of the last two digits. And you have just gotten a rule for basically any of these numbers. ( For 0 0 0 you simply use the fact that you can reduce it to 1 1 1 and then 1+1+1 is 3, and thats all your numbers done in very few steps)

    • @XYZGarfieldZYX
      @XYZGarfieldZYX Před 5 měsíci

      But square was not allowed I guess

    • @Joeljr110
      @Joeljr110 Před 5 měsíci

      He isn't squaring 3 in his example he is sqrting 9 to get 3 which then he factorials to get 6.@@XYZGarfieldZYX

    • @Joeljr110
      @Joeljr110 Před 5 měsíci

      I used the same approach but made a mental list along the way to knock off more variations. In the example below I am only going to match the previous number and not all the operations to get back to the original
      6 = 3! = sqrt(9)
      Then I also though of ways to manipulate the original equation: to get to these numbers
      x/x = 1
      x-x = 0
      (x+x)/x = 2

  • @seanharris3447
    @seanharris3447 Před rokem +1

    For 8s I found another way. Add two of the 8s to get 16 then square root to get 4. Then 4 factorial divided by the last 8 is 3 then use 3 factorial so ((square root(8+8))!/8)!

  • @user-eo2ed7lr2n
    @user-eo2ed7lr2n Před rokem +1

    10 10 10 - take decimal logarithm of 10. We know it equals to 1. Therefore lg10+lg10+lg10 = 3, but 3! = 6

  • @doczero1296
    @doczero1296 Před 4 lety +539

    This comment section is full of nerds. I've never felt more at home.

    • @user-fo4ue9mo4z
      @user-fo4ue9mo4z Před 4 lety +2

      I only know about square roots but not factorials but factory is like saying 5! = 5x4x3x2x1 = which is 120

    • @ArtisticScratch
      @ArtisticScratch Před 4 lety +5

      @@user-fo4ue9mo4z Factorials are easy to understand but this video made me think factorials were addition rather than multiplication: 3+2+1 = 6 = 3x2x1

    • @AdithyaShankaran
      @AdithyaShankaran Před 4 lety

      @@user-fo4ue9mo4z so

    • @user-fo4ue9mo4z
      @user-fo4ue9mo4z Před 4 lety

      ADITHYA SHANKARAN just explaining how factorials world, because most people don’t know about it!

    • @orngng
      @orngng Před 4 lety +1

      ঊᴄᴏᴏʟ ᴘʀᴏ also written out as
      n! = n x (n-1) x (n-2) ... x 3 x 2 x 1
      As n is a member of a natural number

  • @samhecht1492
    @samhecht1492 Před 5 lety +246

    In the future please try to be a bit more specific in ur directions because it was unclear which mathematical symbols were allowed

    • @sondesobbaia1886
      @sondesobbaia1886 Před 5 lety +7

      he said all common mathematical operations which do not explicitly introduce a new number is valid... I used logarithm to solve 10 10 10 = 6 as log (10) = 1

    • @thunderbolto7611
      @thunderbolto7611 Před 5 lety +9

      ​@@sondesobbaia1886 But why choose a base 10 logarithm? This is just a completely arbitrary base to choose.

    • @Nuclearburrit0
      @Nuclearburrit0 Před 5 lety +5

      Thunderbolt O because it is the only base that doesn’t require a number to be written in order to represent

    • @sanhakim1335
      @sanhakim1335 Před 5 lety +5

      @@sondesobbaia1886 log is not a common mathematical operation. The only ones are +×÷-. Square root is ambiguous because it's ^1/2, and there is no way that factorial is common. You will never use that outside of high school-college level math or above.

    • @J7Handle
      @J7Handle Před 5 lety

      @@sondesobbaia1886 log(10) = 2.302... using the natural logarithm.

  • @digitalphoenix2787
    @digitalphoenix2787 Před 4 měsíci

    Another solution for 8 8 8, though a bit more complicated, is to add 8+8 for 16, take the square root to get 4, factorial 4 to get 24, divide by 8 to get 3 and then factorial again to get 6

  • @macro144p
    @macro144p Před 10 měsíci +1

    For 8 I used:
    (round(sin(8) + round(sin(8) + round(sin(8))!
    I did a similar thing with ten:
    (round(-cos(8) + round(-cos(8) + round(-cos(8))!

  • @tushermajumder7211
    @tushermajumder7211 Před 5 lety +198

    In binary method 10 implies 2
    Thr for, 10 +10+10 equal to 6

    • @21nod
      @21nod Před 4 lety +33

      In binary method there is no 6

    • @lotsofd6739
      @lotsofd6739 Před 4 lety +1

      bachelors of trolling degree, 2013
      there are 110,but it’s not 6
      also 110₍₂₎=6₍₁₀₎ but it’s useing diferent number, “2” so we can’t do that

    • @21nod
      @21nod Před 4 lety

      @bachelors of trolling degree, 2013 I know my comment didn't encourage your creativity (which is something that has to be praised) but all I wanted to achieve is challenge you even harder.

    • @supercool1312
      @supercool1312 Před 4 lety +5

      Tusher Majumder 6 is 110 in binary. 10*10+10 is 110. easy

    • @ralphy1054
      @ralphy1054 Před 4 lety +6

      No 10+10+10=110

  • @yassinesafraoui4540
    @yassinesafraoui4540 Před 5 lety +145

    for 444=6, there is an easier way to solve it:
    4+4-√4=6

    • @65EKS65
      @65EKS65 Před 5 lety +17

      Define easier? It's just different way to solve it. Also knowing that √4=2 we can solve it the same way than we solve 2 2 2 without need of inventing new method to solve it so I'd say √4+√4+√4 is more simple.

    • @oenrn
      @oenrn Před 5 lety

      @@65EKS65 "Easier" as in requiring the minimum amount of steps.

    • @65EKS65
      @65EKS65 Před 5 lety +1

      @@oenrn I'd see what you mean if the problem was long but in this it doesn't take any more time to calculate either way. The easy part is that 2 2 2 is already solved and everyone knows that √4=2 so I think it's more complicated to try calculate something different even if it requires less steps if the other answer is already on the table to be seen. But yeah idk. Not big difference either way.

    • @threej4pope
      @threej4pope Před 5 lety +2

      Given that square roots are technically illegal in a strict reading of the rules, I solved this one via (4 nPr 4) /4

    • @InterestingStuffWithMe
      @InterestingStuffWithMe Před 5 lety

      Personally I feel that subtraction is harder and more of a hassle than addition hence I don't think it's an easier way
      Anyone else thinks the same way?

  • @abhirajdeyand79others49
    @abhirajdeyand79others49 Před rokem +1

    We can also say cube root of 8 + cube root of 8 + cube root of 8
    Other than this in the square root problems i guess a mod should be given for each number for absolute value