6 8 7

The 3rd number is smaller than the second but larger than the first. If that post with the 4 options is true then it's 42

Shit 30 would fit too, I guess I'm wrong.

why not 30 then?

Just realized lol

10129/360

matrix with determinant =1

>another pattern spotting pisscontest
You would think a board filled with mathematically minded people would recognise the fact that literally any number could be there and there would still be an infinite number of functions which would perfectly describe the sequence. Every question like this is based on the premise that everyone agrees on what "simplicity" entails.

there are options in the 4th post

Which are just as arbitrary as any other options. At that point its a "guess how I solved this" problem, since there are any number of way to get each of those numbers as is.

you tell us one way to get answer out of those 4 options

6+7=13
6*3=18
6*7=42
6+24=30

Now just find how to build the other numbers put of each other and you have a pattern. Fucking revolutionary.

what about 8, 64 , 48, 4?
you haven't said anything abt pattern in the question tho?

6*8=48
4^3=64

Do you not actually understand that the answer could be anything a person wants it to be?

>find the (correct) convoluted and entirely arbitrary set of manipulations I used to arrive at this pattern
"no"

>brainlet gets B T F O
>doesn't respond

kek

Your answer makes no sense.

probably -100

25, obviously

le e^ipi = -1/12 m'lady

Guy you responded to wasn't me, but my answer makes as much sense as any other answer. Why does each row have to have the same pattern as the others? Nowhere in the rules does it say that.

I'd go with 13

>First row, two numbers are divisible by 2, last one is odd
>First row, two numbers are divisible by 2^2=4, last one is odd
>Third row, two numbers are divisible by 2^3 = 8, 13 is the only odd number

Occams razor, brainlet

The simplest explanation is the most likely too be true

If you have a simpler explanation than mine, mine is probably wrong

>hurdur being odd is a pattern, brainlets
t. Elbert Einstin

>Hurr durr I don't like your pattern therefore it isn't a pattern

Were you born retarded, or is that something you managed all on your own?

I'd go with 42

My answer is 13 so all rows have at least 1 prime (or just an odd number)

BUT

this

2

The numbers are the roots of the polynomial [math]x^9 - 166x^8 + 10201x^7 - 297844x^6 + 4600444x^5 - 40411312x^4 + 207535104x^3 - 611582976x^2 + 984879360x - 594542592
[/math]
:^)

In each column, the top number is the product of the bottom two numbers divided by 12 times a power of two.

6 = (3*24)/(12*1)
8 = (64*48)/(12*32)
7 = (4*X)/(12*(2^k))

k = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
X = {21, 42, 84, 168, ...}
(Note: if this was a problem with only one natural solution, OP wouldn't have had to give multiple choice here )

The solution is 42.

As a matter of fact, this could be combined with the row rule that thought of, and that would make 42 the only solution

>Occams razor, brainlet

Occam's razor does not apply to artificial puzzles, which could be intentionally constructed to favor the more complex solution. plus, you do not know whether an even simpler solution is possible or not.

all people creating these kind of puzzles are idiots trapped in a very narrow sense of "natural" or "straightforward", and think their puzzle is unambiguous because they are retarded. then, when called out on it, they start the angry name-calling, so I thought I'd get into the spirit early to save time.

tldr, prove that the solution you think is "simplest" has the minimal Kolmogorov complexity of all posdible solutions or gtfo back to /tv/.

21

>If you have a simpler explanation than mine, mine is probably wrong
1. the next number is 1 because the rule is that every subsequent number is 1. I'm waiting for a simpler rule.