Fewest steps to reach $200$ from $1$ using only $+1$ and $×2$
$begingroup$
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.
combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math
$endgroup$
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
combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $n+1$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $+$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $n+1$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $n+1$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $n+1$.
$endgroup$
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 $n+1$.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $+$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $+$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $+$
$endgroup$
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 $+$
answered 2 days ago
giannispapavgiannispapav
1,824325
1,824325
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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