this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
40 points (87.0% liked)

Math Memes

2528 readers
7 users here now

Memes related to mathematics.

Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
40
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

SpoilerMore like 99.9995%

https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c2532359h2760821_the_emoji_problem__part_i

solution:

🍎 = 36875131794129999827197811565225474825492979968971970996283137471637224634055579
🍌 = 154476802108746166441951315019919837485664325669565431700026634898253202035277999
🍍 = 4373612677928697257861252602371390152816537558161613618621437993378423467772036

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 month ago

The solution is easy. Blocks Community

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Is this one of those problems that looks trivially easy to solve but has actually been an open problem in math for centuries and drives all who attempt it to inevitable madness?

Getting a real "Collatz" vibe from this

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is a solution. It's just 80 digits long. I added it to the OP in the spoiler.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Rad! Are there solutions for all numbers, I wonder? Or just 4?

ETA: I found at least one solution that works for 2. (1, 1, 3)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah based on the graphical description in the linked post there probably are other solutions. But I don't think it would work for all integer.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

The positive values are calories, fructose and citric acid

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is this Lemmy thread too small to contain it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Too small to contain what?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The "truly marvelous" solution :)

Edit: Wait, was your "yes" a response to the question in the image or the question in the title?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yup πŸ™‚

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

7, 14, 79 comes pretty close. 35, 132, 627 are even closer.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Have you tried 36875131794129999827197811565225474825492979968971970996283137471637224634055579, 154476802108746166441951315019919837485664325669565431700026634898253202035277999, 4373612677928697257861252602371390152816537558161613618621437993378423467772036 ?

[–] wise_pancake 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I’ll be honest, I cleaned up the equation into a similar format, saw it was some elliptic curve thing and said to myself β€œthis is where I’d send it to a computer”, but obviously the solution is so large I doubt it wins be easily to numerically derive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Yeah it's beyond floating point precision range so doing it on a computer requires special care, but it's still very doable, as the linked post demonstrates!