You should be able to solve this.

>>8932504
>inb4 it's not 64

Obviously they're all square numbers and the sequence of numbers squared is 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. I can't tell you why they skipped 5 and 6, so I can't tell what comes next.

169

>>8932547
Why?

>>8932550
Squares that remain square when you remove the last digit.

>>8932553
So why are 1,4,9 in the sequence?

>>8932557
0 is square

>>8932504
Tell the result you faggot

>>8932504

>You should be able to solve this.

Well then I'm not going to bother.

>>8932558
But if you remove a digit from these numbers, you don't get 0

>>8932504
Square numbers whose root isn't divisible by 5. ezpz

>>8932581
>6 is divisible by 5.

Just in case someone doesn't know:

https://oeis.org/search?q=1%2C4%2C9%2C16%2C49&language=english&go=Search

>>8932504
Easy. Those are the first roots of the polynomial (x-1)(x-4)(x-9)(x-16)(x-25)(x-36)(x-49)(x-182737781818)

So the missing number is 182737781818

>>8932504
Every even term is 4^n
Every odd term is the square of the difference of the previous 2 terms

>>8932578
Sure you do. We just don't write leading zeroes of whole numbers

>>8932674
this. or absolutely any other number. people who come up with these stupid problems are low iq illiterates who should take up pig farming to have an ever so slim chance of producing value.

>>8933042
Is there a good system of assigning information value to a description? It seems obvious, that "(x-1)(x-4)(x-9)(x-16)(x-25)(x-36)(x-49)(x-C) for x natural number" is a more complex description than "trunc(a2/10)=b2, a,b natural numbers"

>>8933051
nope, not in the general case. we could handwave around Kolmogorov complexity, but it is useless in actual cases. apart from that weak attempt, the question of which solution is simpler usually becomes a combat of argument from ego or even worse, a decision by retarded majority. I don't see a formula containing trunc(.) as simpler than one which only has addition and multiplication, for example.

also, no one said anything about simple. "what is THE next number" was the problem. anyone who comes up with the quintessentially extrovert "it was implied" bullshit should take up, you guessed it, pig farming. and the omission of the condition of simplicity is due to good reason, otherwise the burden of explanation would fall on the author and not on the wannabe solver.

tl;dr these problems are a form of trolling.

>>8932532
So it looks like we need a function
f(n) such that f(n) = 1 for n in {1,2,3,4}
and f(5) = 3

>>8932504
>>8932553
Just realised there's a better solution using similar logic. Next number is 91. Squares whose first digit is square.

>>8932578
>1 is actually 01 (9 actually 09, etc)
>remove last digit
>0

File: 1456754644336.jpg (16KB, 180x192px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 180x192px

>>8932674
only good answer
keep the facebook bullshit out of /sci/ please

>>8933100
91 is wrong. 169 is the thing.

>>8933115
Why is it wrong? I suppose I was sort of silly to call one answer better because both fit the available data, but the other answer did create this argument about 1 = 01

>>8933118
91 is not a square. I suppose you meant 81.

>>8932674
^
Answer

>>8932504
[math]
11^{2}
[/math]

>>8933125
Does Latex not work anymore?

>>8933122
Oh yes I am retarded. Wow. Well then the next number is 100

>>8933134
oh, crap. you're right

Jesus fucking christ why do people unironically reply to these shitty threads thinking they're funny
nega-bump

>>8933138
Yay! I still feel like a brainlet for thinking that 9^2 is 91 though.

File: IMG_1175.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>8932504
Here's your value: 156

> OP is a faggot

>>8933162
xD LOL! Reposting this epic funny to r/4chan lololol!

File: IMG_1176.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>8933165

>>8933172
>>>/b/

>>8933165
>>8933176
>someone posts a silly but slightly challenging maths question on a maths and science board
>anon decides to just do it for fun
>lol what a faggot xD he should go to [place I don't like]
kys yourself

1^2 = 1
2^2 = 4
(1 + 2)^2 = 3^2 = 9
(1 + 3)^2 = 4^2 = 16
(4 + 3)^2 = 7^2 = 49
(7 + 3)^2 = 10^2 = 100

>>8933042
>low iq illiterates who should take up pig farming
One might even call them "piggots."

>>8932674
>given a sequence to explain the rule
>gives a finite set of numbers
truly a brainlet

>>8933162
>>8933172
Got no problem with the solution, but damn my neck hurts now.

>>8934582
>assuming the sequence is infinite when given nothing that implies it is
sub-brainlet behaviour

>>8933100
>91 is a square number

>>8933138
you had to be corrected by someone who thinks 91 is a square number

>>8934626
And you jerk off to pointing that out.

Obviously it is 5 since it is just the terms of the polynomial [math]\frac{1}{120}(-151x^{5}+2385x^{4}-14035x^{3}+38295x^{2}-47374x+21000)[/math].

>>8934415
I like this answer

>>8932504
It is obviously 156.

Your points are uniquely described by the polynomial of degree 4: x^4 - 10*x^3 + 36*x^2 - 50*x + 6755399441056031/281474976710656, so that is the only valid answer.

>>8932563
damn this guy is the only real mathematician in this thread

File: IMG_4830.jpg (41KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x640px

>>8932563
This guy knows what's up

it should be 121

>1,2,3,4,7,...

This is a fibonacci recursion with starting values of 1 and 2.

The next value should be 11, so 11^2 = 121

The next ones are clearly:
{ x | x is the rest of this sequence. }

Nice try faggot.

81?
......
1*1
2*2
3*3
2*2*2*2
5*5
7*7

3*3*3*3

>>8936637
there is no 5*5

>>8936321
>2 + 3 = 4

nice try, Radiohead

>>8934503
Its a portmanteau

>>8932504


3 number sets:

First set: 1 , 2^2 , 3^2 (Every number increases by one)
Second set: 4^2 , 7^2 , 10^2 (Every number increases by 3)

Third set: 11^2 , 16^2 , 21^2 (Every number increases by 5)

etc...

The answer is obviously 4, proof:

import random
random.seed(236012)
x = [random.randint(1,10)**2 for i in range(6)]
print(x)

> [1, 4, 9, 16, 49, 4]

Using python 3.5.0

1089

>>8932504
OP:

n^2 + (n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(n-4)