Reply to Re: I gave up to the Computers National Olimpiad
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Nice post! Mathematics is quite interesting actually but studying it would've killed me 
But I'm doing computer science so I do get to touch it every now and then (set theory, the rules of logic (axioms, propositions and predicates) and basic mathematical operations on matrices, vectors, complex numbers and equations with several unknown variables). It's more the way a mathematical language defines/proves things unambiguously that I appreciate about maths, even though I'm not that great at calculating or proving things myself.
But it's still interesting like funny things about numbers/mathematical tricks.. the one I recently heard of was about the number 196. For most natural numbers, you can do the following and always end up with a palindrome.. but for 196 it hasn't been proven that it will result in a palindrome:
1. Take a natural number (e.g. 431)
2. Revers the digits (134)
3. Add (431 + 134 = 565 = palindrome)
4. If not palindrome, goto 2
But I'm doing computer science so I do get to touch it every now and then (set theory, the rules of logic (axioms, propositions and predicates) and basic mathematical operations on matrices, vectors, complex numbers and equations with several unknown variables). It's more the way a mathematical language defines/proves things unambiguously that I appreciate about maths, even though I'm not that great at calculating or proving things myself.But it's still interesting like funny things about numbers/mathematical tricks.. the one I recently heard of was about the number 196. For most natural numbers, you can do the following and always end up with a palindrome.. but for 196 it hasn't been proven that it will result in a palindrome:
1. Take a natural number (e.g. 431)
2. Revers the digits (134)
3. Add (431 + 134 = 565 = palindrome)
4. If not palindrome, goto 2
