Primes and Squares











up vote
7
down vote

favorite












Place a different prime or square number on each of the fifteen disks below so that the number in any disk that lies on two others is the sum of the numbers in those disks. Do so in such a way that the number on the apex is as small as possible.



enter image description here










share|improve this question






















  • is this something you composed yourself?
    – Kate Gregory
    2 days ago










  • @KateGregory: A variation on an old theme.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    2 days ago










  • Zero (as a square) allowed?
    – z100
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @z100 You could not use a zero, since $x + 0 = x$, and therefore you'd have to have two $x$'es in your grid; that is disallowed. See imgur.com/a/gPWWkaN for explanation.
    – Hugh
    2 days ago

















up vote
7
down vote

favorite












Place a different prime or square number on each of the fifteen disks below so that the number in any disk that lies on two others is the sum of the numbers in those disks. Do so in such a way that the number on the apex is as small as possible.



enter image description here










share|improve this question






















  • is this something you composed yourself?
    – Kate Gregory
    2 days ago










  • @KateGregory: A variation on an old theme.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    2 days ago










  • Zero (as a square) allowed?
    – z100
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @z100 You could not use a zero, since $x + 0 = x$, and therefore you'd have to have two $x$'es in your grid; that is disallowed. See imgur.com/a/gPWWkaN for explanation.
    – Hugh
    2 days ago















up vote
7
down vote

favorite









up vote
7
down vote

favorite











Place a different prime or square number on each of the fifteen disks below so that the number in any disk that lies on two others is the sum of the numbers in those disks. Do so in such a way that the number on the apex is as small as possible.



enter image description here










share|improve this question













Place a different prime or square number on each of the fifteen disks below so that the number in any disk that lies on two others is the sum of the numbers in those disks. Do so in such a way that the number on the apex is as small as possible.



enter image description here







mathematics arithmetic






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Bernardo Recamán Santos

2,1781139




2,1781139












  • is this something you composed yourself?
    – Kate Gregory
    2 days ago










  • @KateGregory: A variation on an old theme.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    2 days ago










  • Zero (as a square) allowed?
    – z100
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @z100 You could not use a zero, since $x + 0 = x$, and therefore you'd have to have two $x$'es in your grid; that is disallowed. See imgur.com/a/gPWWkaN for explanation.
    – Hugh
    2 days ago




















  • is this something you composed yourself?
    – Kate Gregory
    2 days ago










  • @KateGregory: A variation on an old theme.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    2 days ago










  • Zero (as a square) allowed?
    – z100
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @z100 You could not use a zero, since $x + 0 = x$, and therefore you'd have to have two $x$'es in your grid; that is disallowed. See imgur.com/a/gPWWkaN for explanation.
    – Hugh
    2 days ago


















is this something you composed yourself?
– Kate Gregory
2 days ago




is this something you composed yourself?
– Kate Gregory
2 days ago












@KateGregory: A variation on an old theme.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
2 days ago




@KateGregory: A variation on an old theme.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
2 days ago












Zero (as a square) allowed?
– z100
2 days ago




Zero (as a square) allowed?
– z100
2 days ago




1




1




@z100 You could not use a zero, since $x + 0 = x$, and therefore you'd have to have two $x$'es in your grid; that is disallowed. See imgur.com/a/gPWWkaN for explanation.
– Hugh
2 days ago






@z100 You could not use a zero, since $x + 0 = x$, and therefore you'd have to have two $x$'es in your grid; that is disallowed. See imgur.com/a/gPWWkaN for explanation.
– Hugh
2 days ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
8
down vote



accepted










A much lower upper bound, which I'm fairly sure is optimal (assuming 0 is disallowed).





              1669 
576 || 1093
383 || 193 || 900
347 || 36 || 157 || 743
324 || 23 || 13 || 144 || 599






share|improve this answer










New contributor




B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
    – z100
    2 days ago












  • @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
    – B. Mehta
    2 days ago






  • 1




    My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
    – benj2240
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
    – benj2240
    yesterday






  • 1




    @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    yesterday


















up vote
5
down vote













Alright, I’ve definitely got an upper bound here.




enter image description here




In text:





                  390625 
140625 || 250000
50625 || 90000 || 160000
18225 || 32400 || 57600 || 102400
6561 || 11664 || 20736 || 36864 || 65536



However,




this uses all square numbers, and is far from optimal. I’ll have to see if I can reduce it by using primes.







share|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "559"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f75754%2fprimes-and-squares%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    8
    down vote



    accepted










    A much lower upper bound, which I'm fairly sure is optimal (assuming 0 is disallowed).





                  1669 
    576 || 1093
    383 || 193 || 900
    347 || 36 || 157 || 743
    324 || 23 || 13 || 144 || 599






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
      – z100
      2 days ago












    • @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
      – B. Mehta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
      – benj2240
      2 days ago






    • 1




      @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
      – benj2240
      yesterday






    • 1




      @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
      – Bernardo Recamán Santos
      yesterday















    up vote
    8
    down vote



    accepted










    A much lower upper bound, which I'm fairly sure is optimal (assuming 0 is disallowed).





                  1669 
    576 || 1093
    383 || 193 || 900
    347 || 36 || 157 || 743
    324 || 23 || 13 || 144 || 599






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
      – z100
      2 days ago












    • @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
      – B. Mehta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
      – benj2240
      2 days ago






    • 1




      @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
      – benj2240
      yesterday






    • 1




      @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
      – Bernardo Recamán Santos
      yesterday













    up vote
    8
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    8
    down vote



    accepted






    A much lower upper bound, which I'm fairly sure is optimal (assuming 0 is disallowed).





                  1669 
    576 || 1093
    383 || 193 || 900
    347 || 36 || 157 || 743
    324 || 23 || 13 || 144 || 599






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    A much lower upper bound, which I'm fairly sure is optimal (assuming 0 is disallowed).





                  1669 
    576 || 1093
    383 || 193 || 900
    347 || 36 || 157 || 743
    324 || 23 || 13 || 144 || 599







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago





















    New contributor




    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 2 days ago









    B. Mehta

    1963




    1963




    New contributor




    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    B. Mehta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.












    • Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
      – z100
      2 days ago












    • @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
      – B. Mehta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
      – benj2240
      2 days ago






    • 1




      @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
      – benj2240
      yesterday






    • 1




      @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
      – Bernardo Recamán Santos
      yesterday


















    • Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
      – z100
      2 days ago












    • @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
      – B. Mehta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
      – benj2240
      2 days ago






    • 1




      @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
      – benj2240
      yesterday






    • 1




      @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
      – Bernardo Recamán Santos
      yesterday
















    Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
    – z100
    2 days ago






    Algorithm used extening the order? E.G.: 1st order: 1 ; 2nd order: 3 (1 2) ; 3rd order: 16 (3 13) (1 2 11) ; or 16 (13 3) (12 1 2) ;
    – z100
    2 days ago














    @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
    – B. Mehta
    2 days ago




    @z100 I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking - could you clarify?
    – B. Mehta
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
    – benj2240
    2 days ago




    My own (extremely shameful, dirty, brute-force) code confirms this answer is optimal. I can also provide the smallest apex value for a 4-level tree, which is 23.
    – benj2240
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
    – benj2240
    yesterday




    @BernardoRecamánSantos Oh! You're right, 23 isn't possible. I didn't notice that I had a duplicated 3... Dirty code leads to dirty bugs. Let me correct myself: The smallest apex value for a 4-level tree is 59.
    – benj2240
    yesterday




    1




    1




    @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    yesterday




    @benj2240: Yes, 59 is the lowest my students have achieved.
    – Bernardo Recamán Santos
    yesterday










    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Alright, I’ve definitely got an upper bound here.




    enter image description here




    In text:





                      390625 
    140625 || 250000
    50625 || 90000 || 160000
    18225 || 32400 || 57600 || 102400
    6561 || 11664 || 20736 || 36864 || 65536



    However,




    this uses all square numbers, and is far from optimal. I’ll have to see if I can reduce it by using primes.







    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Alright, I’ve definitely got an upper bound here.




      enter image description here




      In text:





                        390625 
      140625 || 250000
      50625 || 90000 || 160000
      18225 || 32400 || 57600 || 102400
      6561 || 11664 || 20736 || 36864 || 65536



      However,




      this uses all square numbers, and is far from optimal. I’ll have to see if I can reduce it by using primes.







      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        5
        down vote










        up vote
        5
        down vote









        Alright, I’ve definitely got an upper bound here.




        enter image description here




        In text:





                          390625 
        140625 || 250000
        50625 || 90000 || 160000
        18225 || 32400 || 57600 || 102400
        6561 || 11664 || 20736 || 36864 || 65536



        However,




        this uses all square numbers, and is far from optimal. I’ll have to see if I can reduce it by using primes.







        share|improve this answer














        Alright, I’ve definitely got an upper bound here.




        enter image description here




        In text:





                          390625 
        140625 || 250000
        50625 || 90000 || 160000
        18225 || 32400 || 57600 || 102400
        6561 || 11664 || 20736 || 36864 || 65536



        However,




        this uses all square numbers, and is far from optimal. I’ll have to see if I can reduce it by using primes.








        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 days ago









        gabbo1092

        4,673736




        4,673736










        answered 2 days ago









        Excited Raichu

        4,315752




        4,315752






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f75754%2fprimes-and-squares%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Mont Emei