[Kathy]

I, too, have an answer. Unlike my compatriots, I am unburdened by the fear of being wrong in public. (I am a journalist.)

>:(  Time to get out the pica pole for a smackdown.

[Kathy]

I, too, have an answer. Unlike my compatriots, I am unburdened by the fear of being wrong in public. (I am a journalist.)

>:(  Time to get out the pica pole for a smackdown.

[washingtonismoney]

>:(  Time to get out the pica pole for a smackdown.

Being wrong in public is bad, obviously. And I wouldn't want any errors that bespeak an obvious lack of ethics, competence, or ability. But fundamentally if you're going to write in public you're going to have to get over any stage fright you might have and say what you think.

[washingtonismoney]

>:(  Time to get out the pica pole for a smackdown.

Being wrong in public is bad, obviously. And I wouldn't want any errors that bespeak an obvious lack of ethics, competence, or ability. But fundamentally if you're going to write in public you're going to have to get over any stage fright you might have and say what you think.

[stupac2]

Being wrong in public is bad, obviously. And I wouldn't want any errors that bespeak an obvious lack of ethics, competence, or ability. But fundamentally if you're going to write in public you're going to have to get over any stage fright you might have and say what you think.

Alternatively, you have to be prepared to deny to the death that you were ever actually wrong. Which seems to be an increasingly popular way to go about it these days among the talking-head pundit class. We can only hope it never infects the real journalists.

[stupac2]

Being wrong in public is bad, obviously. And I wouldn't want any errors that bespeak an obvious lack of ethics, competence, or ability. But fundamentally if you're going to write in public you're going to have to get over any stage fright you might have and say what you think.

Alternatively, you have to be prepared to deny to the death that you were ever actually wrong. Which seems to be an increasingly popular way to go about it these days among the talking-head pundit class. We can only hope it never infects the real journalists.

[welcher232]

I get 8 = 168 (typo first time), and 9 = 369, but I just can't come up with 10.  Part of me think's there is no solution because 1 would also be undefined in this group.

[welcher232]

I get 8 = 168 (typo first time), and 9 = 369, but I just can't come up with 10.  Part of me think's there is no solution because 1 would also be undefined in this group.

[CompSci87]

I get 8 = 168 (typo first time), and 9 = 369, but I just can't come up with 10.  Part of me think's there is no solution because 1 would also be undefined in this group.

I have no clue where you got those values. Care to explain? The values given in the original puzzle fit the pattern n "=" 2n[sup]2[/sup].

[CompSci87]

I get 8 = 168 (typo first time), and 9 = 369, but I just can't come up with 10.  Part of me think's there is no solution because 1 would also be undefined in this group.

I have no clue where you got those values. Care to explain? The values given in the original puzzle fit the pattern n "=" 2n[sup]2[/sup].

[welcher232]

I used the construct that 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to get it.  I could just be way over analyzing,  and looking for a pattern that isn't really there... here goes.

I drop the last digit of each number, and multiply the remaining digit by N.  That number is added to the series N*5.
3=18  (3*1) + (3*5) = 18
4=32  (4*3) + (4*5) = 32
5=50  (5*5) + (5*5) = 50
6=72  (6*7) + (5*6) = 72
7=98  (7*9) + (5*7) = 98
8=168 (8*16) + (5*8) = 168
9=369 (9*36) + (9*5) = 369

Like I said, I was purposefully looking for something that might not even actually be there.

[welcher232]

I used the construct that 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to get it.  I could just be way over analyzing,  and looking for a pattern that isn't really there... here goes.

I drop the last digit of each number, and multiply the remaining digit by N.  That number is added to the series N*5.
3=18  (3*1) + (3*5) = 18
4=32  (4*3) + (4*5) = 32
5=50  (5*5) + (5*5) = 50
6=72  (6*7) + (5*6) = 72
7=98  (7*9) + (5*7) = 98
8=168 (8*16) + (5*8) = 168
9=369 (9*36) + (9*5) = 369

Like I said, I was purposefully looking for something that might not even actually be there.

[TriangleTree]

I used the construct that 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to get it.  I could just be way over analyzing,  and looking for a pattern that isn't really there... here goes.

I drop the last digit of each number, and multiply the remaining digit by N.  That number is added to the series N*5.
3=18  (3*1) + (3*5) = 18
4=32  (4*3) + (4*5) = 32
5=50  (5*5) + (5*5) = 50
6=72  (6*7) + (5*6) = 72
7=98  (7*9) + (5*7) = 98
8=168 (8*16) + (5*8) = 168
9=369 (9*36) + (9*5) = 369

Like I said, I was purposefully looking for something that might not even actually be there.

Welcher, your numbers do work through 7, but that's a coincidence of the tens digit  increasing by 2 each time in 2n^2 through 7 (18,32,50,72,98.) 

Looking at your numbers, the pattern that you actually found, n*(1+2(n-3))+5n, also works to be 2N^2:

=n*(1+2n-6)+5n
=n+2n^2-6n+5n
=2n^2

Can I get a free angry nerds t-shirt now?

[TriangleTree]

I used the construct that 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to get it.  I could just be way over analyzing,  and looking for a pattern that isn't really there... here goes.

I drop the last digit of each number, and multiply the remaining digit by N.  That number is added to the series N*5.
3=18  (3*1) + (3*5) = 18
4=32  (4*3) + (4*5) = 32
5=50  (5*5) + (5*5) = 50
6=72  (6*7) + (5*6) = 72
7=98  (7*9) + (5*7) = 98
8=168 (8*16) + (5*8) = 168
9=369 (9*36) + (9*5) = 369

Like I said, I was purposefully looking for something that might not even actually be there.

Welcher, your numbers do work through 7, but that's a coincidence of the tens digit  increasing by 2 each time in 2n^2 through 7 (18,32,50,72,98.) 

Looking at your numbers, the pattern that you actually found, n*(1+2(n-3))+5n, also works to be 2N^2:

=n*(1+2n-6)+5n
=n+2n^2-6n+5n
=2n^2

Can I get a free angry nerds t-shirt now?

[welcher232]

Like I said, I realize the common response (and right response) was going to be 2n^2.  You could find a many patterns with such a small subset of numbers.  I figured it was a trick question, and I was going for the gusto.

Per my example 8, and 9 also work.

[welcher232]

Like I said, I realize the common response (and right response) was going to be 2n^2.  You could find a many patterns with such a small subset of numbers.  I figured it was a trick question, and I was going for the gusto.

Per my example 8, and 9 also work.