<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Maths at Nine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/</link>
	<description>Drawn back, as if to a horror movie</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:19:14 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Fat Hen</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2488</link>
		<dc:creator>Fat Hen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2488</guid>
		<description>&quot;Let’s start with the problem but it has to be said that the reasoning behind the solution is complex, unless you are a mathematician:&quot;

:(

Not fair, you&#039;re not excluding physicists, computer scientists and engineers -- ok, we know they suck, but this problem should be easy enough even for them.    

*sniff*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Let’s start with the problem but it has to be said that the reasoning behind the solution is complex, unless you are a mathematician:&#8221;</p>
<p> <img src='http://nourishingobscurity.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Not fair, you&#8217;re not excluding physicists, computer scientists and engineers &#8212; ok, we know they suck, but this problem should be easy enough even for them.    </p>
<p>*sniff*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Higham</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2455</link>
		<dc:creator>James Higham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2455</guid>
		<description>They&#039;re in the pipeline.  Well done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They&#8217;re in the pipeline.  Well done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MTG</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2447</link>
		<dc:creator>MTG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2447</guid>
		<description>The masochist in me pleads for more well posed teasers, James.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The masochist in me pleads for more well posed teasers, James.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2442</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2442</guid>
		<description>Nice one!

Should have checked my hypothesis further. Would have fallen down at 4 and 7 lol!

Thanks - a fun challenge!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice one!</p>
<p>Should have checked my hypothesis further. Would have fallen down at 4 and 7 lol!</p>
<p>Thanks &#8211; a fun challenge!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lord T</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2431</link>
		<dc:creator>Lord T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:31:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2431</guid>
		<description>Mmmm. Bit of a swizz there James.  Another of these maths puzzles that are only good for theoretical Maths people.

For example if Einstein had the number 20 as his result it meant that 1+19, 2+18 .. 9+11, etc. could meet his requirements and he doesn&#039;t know the answer to x and y.   If Turing had 99 as his answer he could have 1x99, 3x33 ... and so on.   He doesn&#039;t know either.   They both say they don&#039;t know and it doesn&#039;t help one jot unless they give each other the information they hold.

Have I mentioned I now hate maths.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mmmm. Bit of a swizz there James.  Another of these maths puzzles that are only good for theoretical Maths people.</p>
<p>For example if Einstein had the number 20 as his result it meant that 1+19, 2+18 .. 9+11, etc. could meet his requirements and he doesn&#8217;t know the answer to x and y.   If Turing had 99 as his answer he could have 1&#215;99, 3&#215;33 &#8230; and so on.   He doesn&#8217;t know either.   They both say they don&#8217;t know and it doesn&#8217;t help one jot unless they give each other the information they hold.</p>
<p>Have I mentioned I now hate maths.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Higham</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2425</link>
		<dc:creator>James Higham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2425</guid>
		<description>OK, time for the explanation Nick gave.  In the original, Turing was S and Einstein was P:

Two perfect logicians, S and P, are told that integers x and y have been chosen such that 1 &lt; x &lt; y and x+y &lt; 100.  S is given the value x+y and P is given the value xy.  They then have the following conversation.

    P:  I cannot determine the two numbers.
    S:  I knew that.
    P:  Now I can determine them.
    S:  So can I.

Given that the above statements are true, what are the two numbers?

First of all, trivially, xy cannot be prime.  It also cannot be the square of a prime, for that would imply x = y.

We now deduce as much as possible from each of the logicians&#039; statements.  We have only public information: the problem statement, the logicians&#039; statements, and the knowledge that the logicians, being perfect, will always make correct and complete deductions.  Each logician has, in addition, one piece of private information: sum or product.

    P:  I cannot determine the two numbers.

P&#039;s statement implies that xy cannot have exactly two distinct proper factors whose sum is less than 100.  Call such a pair of factors eligible.

For example, xy cannot be the product of two distinct primes, for then P could deduce the numbers.  Likewise, xy cannot be the cube of a prime, such as 33 = 27, for then 3×9 would be a unique factorization; or the fourth power of a prime.

Other combinations are ruled out by the fact that the sum of the two factors must be less than 100.  For example, xy cannot be 242 = 2×112, since 11×22 is the unique eligible factorization; 2×121 being ineligible.  Similarly for xy = 318 = 2×3×53.

    S:  I knew that.

If S was sure that P could not deduce the numbers, then none of the possible summands of x+y can be such that their product has exactly one pair of eligible factors.  For example, x+y could not be 51, since summands 17 and 34 produce xy = 578, which would permit P to deduce the numbers.

We can generate a list of values of x+y that are never the sum of precisely two eligible factors.  The following list is generated by JavaScript; the function may be inspected by viewing JavaScript: function genSum (plain text.)

Eligible sums:  11, 17, 23, 27, 29, 35, 37, 41, 47, 53.

(We can use Goldbach&#039;s Conjecture, which states that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes, to deduce that the above list can contain only odd numbers.  Although the conjecture remains unproven, it has been verified empirically up to 1018.)

    P:  Now I can determine them.

P now knows that x+y is one of the values listed above.  If this enables P to deduce x and y, then, of the eligible factorizations of xy, there must be precisely one for which the sum of the factors is in the list.  The table below, generated by JavaScript (view plain text JavaScript: function genProd), shows all such xy, together with the corresponding x, y, and x+y.  The table is sorted by sum and then product.

Note that a product may be absent from the table for one of two reasons.  Either none of its eligible factorizations appears in the above list of eligible sums (example: 12 = 2×6 and 3×4; sums 8 and 7), or more than one such factorization appears (example: 30 = 2×15 and 5×6; sums 17 and 11.)

    S:  So can I.

If S can deduce the numbers from the table below, there must be a sum that appears exactly once in the table.  Checking the table, we find just one such sum: 17.

Therefore, we are able to deduce that the numbers are x = 4 and y = 13.

Eligible products and sums

Product	x	y	Sum

18	2	9	11
24	3	8	11
28	4	7	11
52	4	13	17
76	4	19	23
112	7	16	23
130	10	13	23
50	2	25	27
92	4	23	27
110	5	22	27
140	7	20	27
152	8	19	27
162	9	18	27
170	10	17	27
176	11	16	27
182	13	14	27
54	2	27	29
100	4	25	29
138	6	23	29
154	7	22	29
168	8	21	29
190	10	19	29
198	11	18	29
204	12	17	29
208	13	16	29
96	3	32	35
124	4	31	35
150	5	30	35
174	6	29	35
196	7	28	35
216	8	27	35
234	9	26	35
250	10	25	35
276	12	23	35
294	14	21	35
304	16	19	35
306	17	18	35
160	5	32	37
186	6	31	37
232	8	29	37
252	9	28	37
270	10	27	37
322	14	23	37
336	16	21	37
340	17	20	37
180	5	36	41
114	3	38	41
148	4	37	41
238	7	34	41
288	9	32	41
310	10	31	41
348	12	29	41
364	13	28	41
378	14	27	41
390	15	26	41
400	16	25	41
408	17	24	41
414	18	23	41
418	19	22	41
132	3	44	47
172	4	43	47
246	6	41	47
280	7	40	47
370	10	37	47
396	11	36	47
442	13	34	47
462	14	33	47
480	15	32	47
496	16	31	47
510	17	30	47
522	18	29	47
532	19	28	47
540	20	27	47
546	21	26	47
550	22	25	47
552	23	24	47</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, time for the explanation Nick gave.  In the original, Turing was S and Einstein was P:</p>
<p>Two perfect logicians, S and P, are told that integers x and y have been chosen such that 1 < x < y and x+y < 100.  S is given the value x+y and P is given the value xy.  They then have the following conversation.</p>
<p>    P:  I cannot determine the two numbers.<br />
    S:  I knew that.<br />
    P:  Now I can determine them.<br />
    S:  So can I.</p>
<p>Given that the above statements are true, what are the two numbers?</p>
<p>First of all, trivially, xy cannot be prime.  It also cannot be the square of a prime, for that would imply x = y.</p>
<p>We now deduce as much as possible from each of the logicians&#8217; statements.  We have only public information: the problem statement, the logicians&#8217; statements, and the knowledge that the logicians, being perfect, will always make correct and complete deductions.  Each logician has, in addition, one piece of private information: sum or product.</p>
<p>    P:  I cannot determine the two numbers.</p>
<p>P&#8217;s statement implies that xy cannot have exactly two distinct proper factors whose sum is less than 100.  Call such a pair of factors eligible.</p>
<p>For example, xy cannot be the product of two distinct primes, for then P could deduce the numbers.  Likewise, xy cannot be the cube of a prime, such as 33 = 27, for then 3×9 would be a unique factorization; or the fourth power of a prime.</p>
<p>Other combinations are ruled out by the fact that the sum of the two factors must be less than 100.  For example, xy cannot be 242 = 2×112, since 11×22 is the unique eligible factorization; 2×121 being ineligible.  Similarly for xy = 318 = 2×3×53.</p>
<p>    S:  I knew that.</p>
<p>If S was sure that P could not deduce the numbers, then none of the possible summands of x+y can be such that their product has exactly one pair of eligible factors.  For example, x+y could not be 51, since summands 17 and 34 produce xy = 578, which would permit P to deduce the numbers.</p>
<p>We can generate a list of values of x+y that are never the sum of precisely two eligible factors.  The following list is generated by JavaScript; the function may be inspected by viewing JavaScript: function genSum (plain text.)</p>
<p>Eligible sums:  11, 17, 23, 27, 29, 35, 37, 41, 47, 53.</p>
<p>(We can use Goldbach&#8217;s Conjecture, which states that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes, to deduce that the above list can contain only odd numbers.  Although the conjecture remains unproven, it has been verified empirically up to 1018.)</p>
<p>    P:  Now I can determine them.</p>
<p>P now knows that x+y is one of the values listed above.  If this enables P to deduce x and y, then, of the eligible factorizations of xy, there must be precisely one for which the sum of the factors is in the list.  The table below, generated by JavaScript (view plain text JavaScript: function genProd), shows all such xy, together with the corresponding x, y, and x+y.  The table is sorted by sum and then product.</p>
<p>Note that a product may be absent from the table for one of two reasons.  Either none of its eligible factorizations appears in the above list of eligible sums (example: 12 = 2×6 and 3×4; sums 8 and 7), or more than one such factorization appears (example: 30 = 2×15 and 5×6; sums 17 and 11.)</p>
<p>    S:  So can I.</p>
<p>If S can deduce the numbers from the table below, there must be a sum that appears exactly once in the table.  Checking the table, we find just one such sum: 17.</p>
<p>Therefore, we are able to deduce that the numbers are x = 4 and y = 13.</p>
<p>Eligible products and sums</p>
<p>Product	x	y	Sum</p>
<p>18	2	9	11<br />
24	3	8	11<br />
28	4	7	11<br />
52	4	13	17<br />
76	4	19	23<br />
112	7	16	23<br />
130	10	13	23<br />
50	2	25	27<br />
92	4	23	27<br />
110	5	22	27<br />
140	7	20	27<br />
152	8	19	27<br />
162	9	18	27<br />
170	10	17	27<br />
176	11	16	27<br />
182	13	14	27<br />
54	2	27	29<br />
100	4	25	29<br />
138	6	23	29<br />
154	7	22	29<br />
168	8	21	29<br />
190	10	19	29<br />
198	11	18	29<br />
204	12	17	29<br />
208	13	16	29<br />
96	3	32	35<br />
124	4	31	35<br />
150	5	30	35<br />
174	6	29	35<br />
196	7	28	35<br />
216	8	27	35<br />
234	9	26	35<br />
250	10	25	35<br />
276	12	23	35<br />
294	14	21	35<br />
304	16	19	35<br />
306	17	18	35<br />
160	5	32	37<br />
186	6	31	37<br />
232	8	29	37<br />
252	9	28	37<br />
270	10	27	37<br />
322	14	23	37<br />
336	16	21	37<br />
340	17	20	37<br />
180	5	36	41<br />
114	3	38	41<br />
148	4	37	41<br />
238	7	34	41<br />
288	9	32	41<br />
310	10	31	41<br />
348	12	29	41<br />
364	13	28	41<br />
378	14	27	41<br />
390	15	26	41<br />
400	16	25	41<br />
408	17	24	41<br />
414	18	23	41<br />
418	19	22	41<br />
132	3	44	47<br />
172	4	43	47<br />
246	6	41	47<br />
280	7	40	47<br />
370	10	37	47<br />
396	11	36	47<br />
442	13	34	47<br />
462	14	33	47<br />
480	15	32	47<br />
496	16	31	47<br />
510	17	30	47<br />
522	18	29	47<br />
532	19	28	47<br />
540	20	27	47<br />
546	21	26	47<br />
550	22	25	47<br />
552	23	24	47</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lord T</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2422</link>
		<dc:creator>Lord T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2422</guid>
		<description>Well, I hope one of you is right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I hope one of you is right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2411</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:44:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2411</guid>
		<description>Right, I think I&#039;ve got it (head has now cleared after the vino!)

Einstein&#039;s number can&#039;t be a semiprime (otherwise it would have two unique factors only)

Turing knows this because the sum he has cannot be represented by adding two prime numbers together. Thus the sum 
is not an even number, nor is the sum-2 equal to a prime number.

So x and y are made up of one even number and one odd number.

Once Einstein knows that the sum of the numbers cannot be represented by 2 prime numbers, he can solve it.

Reason for this is the number (the product) Einstein has is so small, it can only have one unique set of factors which are an even and odd pair. 
Ditto for Turing. Once he knows Einstein can solve it, he knows that the number must be so small that even-odd pair must make up unique 
factors in that number.

Thus the numbers must be the smallest they can be (to be unique factors) which satisfy the rules.

x and y are both greater than 1, and they are not equal.

Try x=2
y must be an odd non prime number, therefore the lowest value of y is 9

Unfortunately the product does not have a unique set of odd-even factors (could be 2x9 or 3x6).

No point in increasing the value of y (i.e. to 15) as if the lowest value doesn&#039;t have unique factors, anything higher can&#039;t.

Try x=3
y must be an even number

With y=4, the sum is 7. This is unacceptable as it can be represented by 2 primes and therefore Turing couldn&#039;t know for sure that Einstein couldn&#039;t solve it.

y=6

The sum is 9 which again violates our rule that it can be represented by 2 primes (2 and 7)

y=8

The sum is 11 which means Turing&#039;s rules are satisfied (i.e. cannot be made up of two primes)

The product is 24 which only has one set of unique even-odd factors, namely 8 and 3.

By my reckoning, the numbers are 8 and 3.

Very interesting....perhaps someone can placate my Mrs. as to why the decorating has been going slowly this
morning!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right, I think I&#8217;ve got it (head has now cleared after the vino!)</p>
<p>Einstein&#8217;s number can&#8217;t be a semiprime (otherwise it would have two unique factors only)</p>
<p>Turing knows this because the sum he has cannot be represented by adding two prime numbers together. Thus the sum<br />
is not an even number, nor is the sum-2 equal to a prime number.</p>
<p>So x and y are made up of one even number and one odd number.</p>
<p>Once Einstein knows that the sum of the numbers cannot be represented by 2 prime numbers, he can solve it.</p>
<p>Reason for this is the number (the product) Einstein has is so small, it can only have one unique set of factors which are an even and odd pair.<br />
Ditto for Turing. Once he knows Einstein can solve it, he knows that the number must be so small that even-odd pair must make up unique<br />
factors in that number.</p>
<p>Thus the numbers must be the smallest they can be (to be unique factors) which satisfy the rules.</p>
<p>x and y are both greater than 1, and they are not equal.</p>
<p>Try x=2<br />
y must be an odd non prime number, therefore the lowest value of y is 9</p>
<p>Unfortunately the product does not have a unique set of odd-even factors (could be 2&#215;9 or 3&#215;6).</p>
<p>No point in increasing the value of y (i.e. to 15) as if the lowest value doesn&#8217;t have unique factors, anything higher can&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Try x=3<br />
y must be an even number</p>
<p>With y=4, the sum is 7. This is unacceptable as it can be represented by 2 primes and therefore Turing couldn&#8217;t know for sure that Einstein couldn&#8217;t solve it.</p>
<p>y=6</p>
<p>The sum is 9 which again violates our rule that it can be represented by 2 primes (2 and 7)</p>
<p>y=8</p>
<p>The sum is 11 which means Turing&#8217;s rules are satisfied (i.e. cannot be made up of two primes)</p>
<p>The product is 24 which only has one set of unique even-odd factors, namely 8 and 3.</p>
<p>By my reckoning, the numbers are 8 and 3.</p>
<p>Very interesting&#8230;.perhaps someone can placate my Mrs. as to why the decorating has been going slowly this<br />
morning!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Wadsworth</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2410</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Wadsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2410</guid>
		<description>Sorry, I explained that wrong. Ignore previous comment.

Actually, I withdraw 3+4 from the race. If that’s the combination, then T can’t have known that E wouldn’t know either, because there is a possibility that E has 10 written on his piece of paper.

So let’s try 3 + 8, the first one on Don’s list.
a. T has 11, so he knows that E has either 18 (which might be 2+9 or 3+6, from E’s point of view) or 24 (which might be 3+8 or 4+6) or 28 (which might be 4+7 or 2+14) or 30 (which might be 3+10 or 5+6 from E’s point of view).
b. So T knows that E can’t know.
c. However, if E has 24, then E knows that it&#039;s either 3+8 or 4+6, so T might have 10 on his piece of paper. If T had 10, he knows that E might have 21, which is semi-prime, so if T had 10, he couldn&#039;t be sure that E doesn&#039;t know.
So rule that out.

To apply logic rather than maths, neither number is prime and they add up to an odd number. Rule out 1, 2 and 3 (all prime) so the smallest even number is 4...

Try 4+9. T has 13, but this might be 2+11, and if E had 22, that has only one solution.

Try 4+15. T has 19, but this might be 2+17. He knows that E might have 34, which has a unique solution.

Try 4+21. T has 25, but this might be 2+23. He knows that E might have 46, which has a unique solution.

OK, next ad hoc rule is starting to emerge. The total of the two numbers minus 2 can&#039;t be prime.  The smallest two odd numbers that are not prime numbers that are two apart are 25 and 27.
Therefore the smallest odd number it can include is 25.

Try 4+25. T has 29, this might be 2+27, but even if E had 54, there is no unique solution to this. T knows that the other numbers that E might have are 78, 100, 

So my final, final offer is 4+25.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, I explained that wrong. Ignore previous comment.</p>
<p>Actually, I withdraw 3+4 from the race. If that’s the combination, then T can’t have known that E wouldn’t know either, because there is a possibility that E has 10 written on his piece of paper.</p>
<p>So let’s try 3 + 8, the first one on Don’s list.<br />
a. T has 11, so he knows that E has either 18 (which might be 2+9 or 3+6, from E’s point of view) or 24 (which might be 3+8 or 4+6) or 28 (which might be 4+7 or 2+14) or 30 (which might be 3+10 or 5+6 from E’s point of view).<br />
b. So T knows that E can’t know.<br />
c. However, if E has 24, then E knows that it&#8217;s either 3+8 or 4+6, so T might have 10 on his piece of paper. If T had 10, he knows that E might have 21, which is semi-prime, so if T had 10, he couldn&#8217;t be sure that E doesn&#8217;t know.<br />
So rule that out.</p>
<p>To apply logic rather than maths, neither number is prime and they add up to an odd number. Rule out 1, 2 and 3 (all prime) so the smallest even number is 4&#8230;</p>
<p>Try 4+9. T has 13, but this might be 2+11, and if E had 22, that has only one solution.</p>
<p>Try 4+15. T has 19, but this might be 2+17. He knows that E might have 34, which has a unique solution.</p>
<p>Try 4+21. T has 25, but this might be 2+23. He knows that E might have 46, which has a unique solution.</p>
<p>OK, next ad hoc rule is starting to emerge. The total of the two numbers minus 2 can&#8217;t be prime.  The smallest two odd numbers that are not prime numbers that are two apart are 25 and 27.<br />
Therefore the smallest odd number it can include is 25.</p>
<p>Try 4+25. T has 29, this might be 2+27, but even if E had 54, there is no unique solution to this. T knows that the other numbers that E might have are 78, 100, </p>
<p>So my final, final offer is 4+25.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lord T</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2409</link>
		<dc:creator>Lord T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2409</guid>
		<description>I did what Don did and worked out all the candidates.    Then I reread the post and realised that these guys had been given the answers to X+Y and XY yet they could not work it out which means they must be large enough to have several candidates.

The bit that totally confused me was when they said they couldn&#039;t work it out then they could when they found out the other couldn&#039;t.  That means that when they work out X+Y and XY then only one pair meets the criteria.  However I have no idea how to do that without knowing the results.   Clearly there is a Mathematical trick that does it and not being a maths guys I&#039;m stuck.   Head firmly against wall as I meant by my comment yesterday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did what Don did and worked out all the candidates.    Then I reread the post and realised that these guys had been given the answers to X+Y and XY yet they could not work it out which means they must be large enough to have several candidates.</p>
<p>The bit that totally confused me was when they said they couldn&#8217;t work it out then they could when they found out the other couldn&#8217;t.  That means that when they work out X+Y and XY then only one pair meets the criteria.  However I have no idea how to do that without knowing the results.   Clearly there is a Mathematical trick that does it and not being a maths guys I&#8217;m stuck.   Head firmly against wall as I meant by my comment yesterday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Wadsworth</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2407</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Wadsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:59:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2407</guid>
		<description>Actually, I withdraw 3+4 from the race. If that&#039;s the combination, then T can&#039;t have known that E wouldn&#039;t know either, because there is a possibility that E has 10 written on his piece of paper. 

So let&#039;s try 3 + 8, the first one on Don&#039;s list.
T has 11, so he knows that E has either 18 (which might be 2+9 or 3+6, from E&#039;s point of view) or 30 (which might be 3+10 or 5+6 from E&#039;s point of view).
So T knows that E can&#039;t know.
E admits he doesn&#039;t know, so T confirms he knew that.
In which case knows that T has either 11 or 9 or 13 or 11, none of which helps E.

To apply logic rather than maths, neither number is prime and they add up to an odd number. Rule out 1, 2 and 3.

Try 4+9. T has 13, but this might be 2+11, and if E had 22, E would know that E knows, rule out.

Try 4+15. T has 19. He knows that E has either 48, 60, 70, 78, 72, 88 or 90, none of which has a unique solution. 

That&#039;s my final offer, the numbers are 4+15.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I withdraw 3+4 from the race. If that&#8217;s the combination, then T can&#8217;t have known that E wouldn&#8217;t know either, because there is a possibility that E has 10 written on his piece of paper. </p>
<p>So let&#8217;s try 3 + 8, the first one on Don&#8217;s list.<br />
T has 11, so he knows that E has either 18 (which might be 2+9 or 3+6, from E&#8217;s point of view) or 30 (which might be 3+10 or 5+6 from E&#8217;s point of view).<br />
So T knows that E can&#8217;t know.<br />
E admits he doesn&#8217;t know, so T confirms he knew that.<br />
In which case knows that T has either 11 or 9 or 13 or 11, none of which helps E.</p>
<p>To apply logic rather than maths, neither number is prime and they add up to an odd number. Rule out 1, 2 and 3.</p>
<p>Try 4+9. T has 13, but this might be 2+11, and if E had 22, E would know that E knows, rule out.</p>
<p>Try 4+15. T has 19. He knows that E has either 48, 60, 70, 78, 72, 88 or 90, none of which has a unique solution. </p>
<p>That&#8217;s my final offer, the numbers are 4+15.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MTG</title>
		<link>http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/comment-page-1/#comment-2406</link>
		<dc:creator>MTG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/11/21/maths-at-nine/#comment-2406</guid>
		<description>This was bleddy cruel and I&#039;m beaten and off to peel the veg. Mutter, mutter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was bleddy cruel and I&#8217;m beaten and off to peel the veg. Mutter, mutter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
