□ □ □ + □ □ □
You are given that the numbers 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 are to be filled in the square boxes as shown above (without repetition). Of all 6 ! = 7 2 0 possible arrangements, find the minimum value of the resultant number.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
If you want "higher numbers closer to the ground", how come the answer isn't 4 3 2 ? ;)
Log in to reply
I know, the rule doesn't really hold... it was more just some intuition that I had. If anything, this solution shows that you should pursue your intuitions and show that they're either true or false. I edited my solution so it doesn't sound just like a purely false statement!
Log in to reply
Your rule holds if the numbers are "large enough": a b < b a if a > b ≥ e . So, your intuition was leading you into the right direction...
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – But for the power-stacks like the ones in question and beyond, it gets a little fuzzier.
Log in to reply
@Ryan Tamburrino – That would be an interesting question to contemplate: If a > b > c ≥ e , is the value of a b c necessarily less than the value of any other "power-stack" you can build with a , b and c ?
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Perhaps I'll do some exploring later!
Log in to reply
@Ryan Tamburrino – Oh, that's interesting! It looks like it is true, but I don't know why!
Log in to reply
@Chung Kevin – Want me to outline a proof?
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Yes please, that would be helpful :)
Log in to reply
@Chung Kevin – I have not thought about this too carefully, so, my proof may not be optimal, if it is even correct.
Again, let's assume that a > b > c ≥ e . According to what we said earlier, it suffices to show that a b c < b a c , and a b c < c a b . Being lazy, I will attempt to prove the first, leaving the "analogous" second inequality "as an exercise to the reader."
Since the function x ln x is decreasing for x ≥ e , we know that ln a ln b > a b . Since a b < 1 , we have ( a b ) c < a b < ln a ln b or b c ln a < a c ln b . Now we can exponentiate to see that a b c < b a c as claimed.
This is awfully informal, but eh.
Consider a single tower □ □ □ . If one of the numbers is 1 , then to achieve the minimum, 1 must be at the bottom: 1 □ □ = 1 < 2 ≤ □ 1 ≤ ( □ 1 ) □ □ for any □ 1 = 1 . Thus we may assume that 1 occupies the leftmost square: we know 1 is at the base, and addition is commutative. Thus now we have 1 □ □ + □ □ □ .
Next, consider a tower □ □ □ . Take any of the squares as the variable, and fix the other two. Observe that the resulting function in one variable is strictly increasing on the positive integers: for example, x ↦ x □ □ is strictly increasing when x is a positive integer, for any positive integers filling the squares.
This essentially means that if we can replace a square with a smaller number (and retaining that there is no repetition, perhaps by changing the numbers present in the tower with the 1 ), the current arrangement is not the smallest. In other words, if there exists a 5 or a 6 in the second tower, we know that we can replace it by some number in 2 , 3 , 4 that is not present in the tower (and replace the corresponding number in the first tower with the replaced number). For example, 1 3 6 + 2 4 5 can be replaced to 1 5 6 + 2 4 3 . Thus we can assume that the second tower only has 2 , 3 , 4 . In addition, this means the 5 , 6 must go to the first tower, and their locations are actually not important since either way the left tower is 1 raised to something, giving 1 .
Finally, the 6 possibilities are actually pretty easy to compare:
Thus the second tower should be 4 2 3 to minimize the result. We thus have 1 □ □ + 4 2 3 = 1 + 4 8 = 6 5 5 3 7 . We also know that there are exactly 4 permutations giving this result (the 1 can go in two places; the 5 can go to either place in the same tower as the 1 ; the rest is fixed).
Looks pretty formal to me =)
The main issue when solving this issue is to prove why 1,5,6 and 2,3,4 are grouped together which most solutions overlook this fact.
Very detailed solution. Thank you!
Thank you for listing down the 6 possibilities. I've made a mistake early on because I've forgotten to consider one alternative.
1^(5^6) + 4^(2^3) OR 1^(6^5) + 4^(2^3) = 65537
1^(5^60)+(2^3)^4 this blunder i have done
1^(5^6) + 4^(2^3) OR 1^(6^5) + 4^(2^3) = 65537
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
I used Python code for a solution, because I'm the laziest person in the world. But this can be approached logically in a simple way. Intuition says we probably want larger numbers closer "to the ground," as it were. We want to keep them out of the higher boxes. Let's not use this rule rigorously, but we can keep it in the back of our minds. Then, we remember that 1 x = 1 ∀ x ∈ R ! So, we can actually put 1 in one of the bottom boxes, and rid our set of those pesky fellows 5 and 6 , right in the boxes above 1 . So, now the answer is of the form 1 + a b c , where we have a , b , c ∈ [ 2 , 3 , 4 ] . We only have 3 ! = 6 cases to check, and they're rather easy to sort manually. Remember, we want higher numbers closer to the "ground." But clearly, 4 3 2 > 4 2 3 , and 4 2 3 = 2 1 6 . Moving onto the next cases, we have 2 3 4 = 2 8 1 > 2 1 6 and 2 4 3 = 2 6 4 > 2 1 6 . The last cases, conveniently wrapped into one: 3 2 4 = 3 4 2 = 3 1 6 > 2 1 6 . Therefore 2 1 6 = 6 5 5 3 6 is clearly the minimum for what we had left, and so the answer is 6 5 5 3 7 .