well /sci/?

>>8714267
Literally any number

>>8714276
this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial

>>8714279
Sequences have infinitely many elements. Polynomials can only have finitely many roots. Lagrange polynomials are irrelevant, but the determination of the sequence's next element is completely arbitrary.

>>8714276
>>8714279
>>8714290
Yea okay, I get your point I guess. I gave up though.

You can test your further knowledge here, if you're interested.
http://planning.e-psychometrics.com/test/numseqcat?pid=000&ssid=2945584

Take any odd position value from the sequence and its successor will have all the digits multiplied by three and summed at the same positions.

Not sure how these pairs are related to each other.

>>8714307
Oh, the difference between odd position value and its successor is always 32.

The next values are 978+32=1010 and 3030.

>>8714290
>Sequences have infinitely many elements.
[citation needed]

>Polynomials can only have finitely many roots
[citation needed]

>>8714290
>Lagrange polynomials are irrelevant
wrong because they're a tool that allows for the sequence to be extended arbitrarily

>>8714312
Wow yea. Nicely spotted.

>>8714316
I'm not going to cite basic math knowledge; being on /sci/, you are familiar with basic math terms and their definitions, aren't you?
>>8714319
No, Lagrange polynomials are used for constructing polynomials for the purpose of interpolating a finite set of points; they aren't used for extrapolation, which is what you proposed they be used for. If you were insinuating that for every sequence there exists a polynomial whose roots are defined by that sequence, you'd be wrong.

>>8714333
>I'm not going to cite basic math knowledge; being on /sci/, you are familiar with basic math terms and their definitions, aren't you?
i have a degree in it so i'd hope so. are you sure you're familiar?

i'll wait for you to find these citations

>>8714333
>they aren't used for extrapolation, which is what you proposed they be used for.
wrong because polynomials have larger domains than just the finitely many points you're interpolating

>>8714346
>Sweating intensifies
How could I forget about the trivial polynomial
How could I think a sequence couldn't be finite
Looks like your degree is worth more than mine

>>8714362
>How could I think a sequence couldn't be finite
this is what i was wondering. what book or class did you see such a definition in?

-1/12

>>8714362
I don't think sequences are infinite unless explicitly stated so

>>8714395
dont bother correcting him, his degree lets him redefine mathematical terms and make absurd claims

File: image1.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

1010 and 3030

>>8714267
22*3 = 66
66+32 = 98
98*3 = 294
294+32 = 326
326*3 = 978
978+32 = 1010
1010*3 = 3030