6 8 7 3 64 4 24 48 ? what is the missing number?

>>9071898
1488

>>9071908
these are the options
13 18 42 30

25

>>9071913
how?
what is the fucking pattern here?

>>9071916
idk i just skipped second number for each row
6>7 3>4 24>25

72

42

>>9071898

It's trivial.

>>9072001
how?

>>9072093
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

>>9072170
>>9072093
Shit 30 would fit too, I guess I'm wrong.

>>9072170
why not 30 then?

>>9072179
Just realized lol

>>9071898
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.

>>9072196
there are options in the 4th post

>>9072257
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.

>>9072282
you tell us one way to get answer out of those 4 options

>>9072314
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.

>>9072319
what about 8, 64 , 48, 4?
you haven't said anything abt pattern in the question tho?

>>9072348
6*8=48
4^3=64

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

>>9071898
>find the (correct) convoluted and entirely arbitrary set of manipulations I used to arrive at this pattern
"no"

>>9072348
>>9072382
>>9072319
>>9072314
>brainlet gets B T F O
>doesn't respond

kek

>>9072733
Your answer makes no sense.

>>9071898

probably -100

>>9071898
25, obviously

File: 1500738646941-sci.png (96KB, 259x180px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 259x180px

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

>>9073027
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.

>>9071898
>>9071910
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

>>9072196
>>9072733
>>9073313
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

>>9073437
>hurdur being odd is a pattern, brainlets
t. Elbert Einstin

>>9073450
>Hurr durr I don't like your pattern therefore it isn't a pattern

>>9073605
Were you born retarded, or is that something you managed all on your own?

>>9071910
I'd go with 42

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

BUT

>>9072319
>>9072382
this

>>9071898
>>9071898
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 >>9071910)

The solution is 42.

>>9074700
As a matter of fact, this could be combined with the row rule that >>9072170 thought of, and that would make 42 the only solution

>>9073437
>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

>>9073437
>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.