Meme sequence

I don't see what is arbitrary about my solutions predictions. One sequence increases by 6, the other by 10. The combined numbers they generate are ordered sequentially in the final sequence.

Not sure if this is helpful because it doesn't lead to any answer, but I found a pattern where the last digit in the sequence is the same as the amount added the third, fourth and sixth time (if you exclude adding eight to get eight at the beginning). You add in this order: +6, +6, +0, +6, +4, +2. 20's last digit is 0, 26's last digit is 6 and 32's last digit is 2, which corresponds to their addition. Unless it's acceptable to subtract, this method does not seem useful. Otherwise, the answer could be 31, because you -1 and 31's last digit is 1.

first one times two minus 2, second one times two minus the number before it (8), etc

took all of 3 seconds

The sequence that increases by 10 has been placed with a gap in the middle, i.e 20, *26* , 30.
That isn't something that follows logically from anything, aside from 'The gap is there because the gap needs to be there for my answer to work'. Your solution 'works' in the same way that the Bible 'works' as a scientific model.
>Fitting the sequence does not imply that it's what is actually happening

The 26 follows from the sequence that increases by 6.

8(2)-2 =14, fine
14(2)-8 = 20, fine
20(2)-14=26? The next term in the sequence is 20, user.

It's not in oeis, so the answer probably is not purely mathematical. It's possible your """""friend""""" is just trying to fuck with you, by changing a single term in an actual sequence, or oddly splicing two different ones together.

I know where the 26 comes from. I'm taking issue with how you've spliced the two sequences.
Why do you spend your time brainlet posting on a Chinese ladyboy-appreciation website?

Yeah, I thought this; but I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't being stupid and missing something obvious

They are "spliced" in numerical order. I have stated that 3 times now.

If there is a solution. it's probably going to be some bullshit like this; thanks for taking a look at it though

The sequence is that the numbers are natural numbers

Even ones, at that.

"find the next term" tasks are probably the biggest meme in mathematics. There are an infinite amount of perfectly valid solutions, even if we only permit polynomials

38, 40

I understand that; but that's a completely arbitrary assumption. There is no logical process that leads you to conclude that this is the case, other than 'Well, some of the sequence looks like it goes up in 6's, but the 20 and 30 don't fit, so let's just say that it's a separate sequence going up in 10's, and that I whacked two of them together to make this sequence'. I understand that it works in this case; but it has no mathematical rigour to it, you just made up some random shit that seems to fit the sequence, and called it quits. I didn't know that OEIS was a thing, and now that I do, and the sequence isn't in there, I'm quite comfortable in saying that it's just some bullshit that someone made up. But there's probably loads of different avenues of bullshit (yours included) which give different solutions to the problem. You haven't shown me that this is the De-facto rule (then again, there might not be one, owing to bullshit like pic related happening) ,so I questioned your rigour.

Yeah, the thought just occurred to me; it's annoying that we haven't found a single polynomial one yet though

This one makes the most sense. Add six, skip one, add six. The skipped numbers are just a sequence increasing by ten.

You don't need to reiterate how it works.
I don't see how any of the solutions make any more sense than any of the others though.
I could easily say that I took 7 different sequences which start with the seven terms, and form a geometric sequence whereby the first term is multiplied by zero each time, and then spliced all of those sequences together in 'numerical order'. That would be an equally valid solution, no?

Actually, hurr durr, that would make ......0,0,0,0,0,8,14,20,20,26,30,32 . Whoops.
But you get the idea.

Yes, it would. But that's just not as simple. The second sequence starts at 20, because that's what the sequence maker decided would be best to try and fuck with someone who's trying to solve it.

I don't know if sadists adhere by Occam's razor; we can only hope

I don't think you really understand what "rigor" means

He gave an explanation and showed that it works. That means it's no less handwavey than anything else

Its fairly easy.
Assuming the first term is f(1)...
f(x)=1/24(2.2x^6-54.8x^5+517x^4-2467x^3+6056.8x^2+6983.2x+3120. So the next term can be 134. It can also be any other number desu. You just add another term to the polynomial. As i said, these sequences are completely retarded and tell you nothing at all without context.

To clarify, you can add another arbitrary term after 32, and a polynomial can be found that fits it perfectly.

whoa you almost noticed it's not maths at all

2 sequences, Y and X, where Y = Y+6 and X = X+10
now you put Y Y X for the sequence, which works for the set of numbers given.
I don't like this solution, because the starting points for Y and X are arbitrary.

Interpolation is math you dip

69, 69
y = -2.753066486·10-3 x8 + 8.621393013·10-2 x7 - 1.050407881 x6 + 6.093609743 x5 - 14.98510072 x4 - 4.849613095 x3 + 96.51980977 x2 - 157.8126712 x + 84.00195456

thought it could be 8+6*n and even 10's but it's missing 10.

there are infinitely many sequences that start like this that are all equally valid explanations for why the first terms look like this. you're gonna have to make some assumptions if you want to reduce that number to 1