Meme sequence

>>8942503
32, 34

>>8942522
What's the logic?
'Feels like it's true' isn't good enough, btw

>>8942533
It goes +y +x +0 +x in a sequence
Y-2 x-4 for next step

>>8942561
What? How does y-2 and x-4 follow logically?

There are two independent sequences ordered sequentially. One increasing by 6 and the other by 10. The next two numbers are 38 and 40.

>>8942587
That seems like a very wishy-washy answer; I get that the sequence 8,14,20,26,32 is in there which increases by 6 each time, so I guess that the other sequence you're talking about is the 20,30 which is spliced in there at positions 4, and 6 (between 26 and 32). But if you're doing that, you've arbitrarily put a gap between the 20 and 30, so it isn't really preserving the continuity of the original sequence.

>>8942565
It just werks

If you go into a thread and ask for an answer and then deny answers because "muh feelings" don't expect to get an answer you like

>>8942596
To clarify, I want some kind of rule which generates the entire sequence, and can predict the next term; not 'hurr durr, it could be this really arbitrary thing'. I want some kind of logical derivation, without assumptions, that works for the entire sequence.

>>8942600
>Can't justify argument rigourously
>Expects me to not take the piss
>>>/x/

>>8942596
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.

>>8942503
first one times two minus 2, second one times two minus the number before it (8), etc

took all of 3 seconds

>>8942612
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

>>8942623
The 26 follows from the sequence that increases by 6.

>>8942622
8(2)-2 =14, fine
14(2)-8 = 20, fine
20(2)-14=26? The next term in the sequence is 20, anon.

>>8942503
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.

>>8942627
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?

>>8942643
Yeah, I thought this; but I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't being stupid and missing something obvious

>>8942647
They are "spliced" in numerical order. I have stated that 3 times now.

>>8942616
If there is a solution. it's probably going to be some bullshit like this; thanks for taking a look at it though

>>8942643
The sequence is that the numbers are natural numbers

>>8942657
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

File: doge-math.jpg (98KB, 540x1080px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 540x1080px

>>8942654
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.

>>8942664
Yeah, the thought just occurred to me; it's annoying that we haven't found a single polynomial one yet though

>>8942596
This one makes the most sense. Add six, skip one, add six. The skipped numbers are just a sequence increasing by ten.

>>8942675
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?

>>8942682
Actually, hurr durr, that would make ......0,0,0,0,0,8,14,20,20,26,30,32 . Whoops.
But you get the idea.

>>8942682
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.

>>8942692
I don't know if sadists adhere by Occam's razor; we can only hope

>>8942671
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

>>8942674
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.

>>8942730
To clarify, you can add another arbitrary term after 32, and a polynomial can be found that fits it perfectly.

>>8942664
whoa you almost noticed it's not maths at all

>>8942647
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.

>>8943097
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

>>8942503
thought it could be 8+6*n and even 10's but it's missing 10.

>>8942603
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