Fewest steps to reach $200$ from $1$ using only $+1$ and $×2$












18












$begingroup$


This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    2 days ago
















18












$begingroup$


This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    2 days ago














18












18








18


4



$begingroup$


This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.







combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









user21820

39.6k543156




39.6k543156










asked 2 days ago









jeremy radcliffjeremy radcliff

2,21312241




2,21312241








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    2 days ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    2 days ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
2 days ago












$begingroup$
@JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
2 days ago












$begingroup$
@TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
$endgroup$
– John Douma
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
$endgroup$
– John Douma
2 days ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
$endgroup$
– jeremy radcliff
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
$endgroup$
– jeremy radcliff
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















39












$begingroup$

Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:





  • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

  • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

  • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.


Therefore, with a single key press:




  • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

  • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.


The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_{10}=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
    $endgroup$
    – Jared Goguen
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
    $endgroup$
    – Kay K.
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    yesterday



















9












$begingroup$

You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    yesterday



















4












$begingroup$

Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
    $endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    2 days ago












  • $begingroup$
    @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    2 days ago



















2












$begingroup$

I'll make a try



Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151946%2ffewest-steps-to-reach-200-from-1-using-only-1-and-%25c3%25972%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    39












    $begingroup$

    Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:





    • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

    • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

    • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.


    Therefore, with a single key press:




    • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

    • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.


    The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_{10}=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      yesterday
















    39












    $begingroup$

    Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:





    • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

    • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

    • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.


    Therefore, with a single key press:




    • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

    • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.


    The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_{10}=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      yesterday














    39












    39








    39





    $begingroup$

    Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:





    • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

    • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

    • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.


    Therefore, with a single key press:




    • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

    • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.


    The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_{10}=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:





    • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

    • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

    • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.


    Therefore, with a single key press:




    • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

    • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.


    The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_{10}=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered 2 days ago









    TonyKTonyK

    43.5k357136




    43.5k357136












    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      yesterday


















    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
    $endgroup$
    – Jared Goguen
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
    $endgroup$
    – Jared Goguen
    yesterday






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
    $endgroup$
    – Kay K.
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
    $endgroup$
    – Kay K.
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    yesterday











    9












    $begingroup$

    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      yesterday
















    9












    $begingroup$

    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      yesterday














    9












    9








    9





    $begingroup$

    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    Barry CipraBarry Cipra

    60.3k654126




    60.3k654126












    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      yesterday


















    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    yesterday











    4












    $begingroup$

    Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



    Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
      $endgroup$
      – dEmigOd
      2 days ago












    • $begingroup$
      @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
      $endgroup$
      – Yves Daoust
      2 days ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



    Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
      $endgroup$
      – dEmigOd
      2 days ago












    • $begingroup$
      @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
      $endgroup$
      – Yves Daoust
      2 days ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



    Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



    Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Yves DaoustYves Daoust

    131k676229




    131k676229












    • $begingroup$
      you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
      $endgroup$
      – dEmigOd
      2 days ago












    • $begingroup$
      @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
      $endgroup$
      – Yves Daoust
      2 days ago


















    • $begingroup$
      you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
      $endgroup$
      – dEmigOd
      2 days ago












    • $begingroup$
      @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
      $endgroup$
      – Yves Daoust
      2 days ago
















    $begingroup$
    you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
    $endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    2 days ago






    $begingroup$
    you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
    $endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    2 days ago














    $begingroup$
    @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    2 days ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    I'll make a try



    Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



    Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      I'll make a try



      Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



      Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        I'll make a try



        Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



        Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        I'll make a try



        Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



        Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        giannispapavgiannispapav

        1,824325




        1,824325






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151946%2ffewest-steps-to-reach-200-from-1-using-only-1-and-%25c3%25972%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa