Fewest number of steps to reach 200 using special calculatorchoosing $5$ non consecutive books from a shelve of $12$A calculator is broken so that the only keys that still work are the basic trigonometric and inverse trigonometric functionsKnight returning to corner on chessboard — average number of stepsOptimization of English Braille: Using the fewest dotsWhen can we quit a game of War?Shortest number of steps to reach a positionReaching a destination with random steps: is the time $2^x - 1$?integrating a line with a changing slopeA set of integersDoubt regarding William Feller's combinatorics problem of indistinguishable objects

Generic TVP tradeoffs?

Why is there so much iron?

Error message "Cannot index array with string 'Title'" when parsing JSON data with jq

Do US professors/group leaders only get a salary, but no group budget?

Changing Color of error messages

If "dar" means "to give", what does "daros" mean?

How can an organ that provides biological immortality be unable to regenerate?

A Ri-diddley-iley Riddle

TikZ-decoration: control decoration amplitude along curve

How does one measure the Fourier components of a signal?

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?

Is it correct to say "which country do you like the most?"

Does multi-classing into Fighter give you heavy armor proficiency?

Deletion of copy-ctor & copy-assignment - public, private or protected?

Matrix using tikz package

Four married couples attend a party. Each person shakes hands with every other person, except their own spouse, exactly once. How many handshakes?

Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions

Probably overheated black color SMD pads

Print a physical multiplication table

Why does the degree of dissociation change when we dilute a weak acid even though the equilibrium constant K is constant?

How could an airship be repaired midflight?

Tikz: place node leftmost of two nodes of different widths

usage and meaning of Up



Fewest number of steps to reach 200 using special calculator


choosing $5$ non consecutive books from a shelve of $12$A calculator is broken so that the only keys that still work are the basic trigonometric and inverse trigonometric functionsKnight returning to corner on chessboard — average number of stepsOptimization of English Braille: Using the fewest dotsWhen can we quit a game of War?Shortest number of steps to reach a positionReaching a destination with random steps: is the time $2^x - 1$?integrating a line with a changing slopeA set of integersDoubt regarding William Feller's combinatorics problem of indistinguishable objects













2












$begingroup$


This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    1 hour ago















2












$begingroup$


This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    1 hour ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




This is a problem from the AMC 8 (math contest):



A certain calculator has only two keys $[+1]$ and $[times 2]$. When you press one of the keys, the calculator automatically displays the result. For instance, if the calculator originally displayed “$9$” and you pressed $[+1]$, it would display “$10$”. If you then pressed $[times 2]$, it would display “$20$”. Starting with the display “$1$”, what is the fewest number of keystrokes you would need to reach “$200$”?



Intuitively I worked back from $200$, dividing by $2$ until I reached an odd number, subtracting $1$ when I did, etc..to reach the correct answer of $9$ steps.



However, I can't figure out how to convince myself beyond any doubt that it is the optimal solution. In other words, I can't prove it mathematically.
The best I can come up with is that beyond the first step from $1$ to $2$, multiplication by $2$ is always going to yield a larger step than addition by $1$ and therefore I should take as many $[times 2]$ steps as I can. This doesn't feel rigorous enough, though.



EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking for a proof or at least more rigorous explanation of why this is the optimal solution.







combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 1 hour ago









jeremy radcliffjeremy radcliff

2,13112240




2,13112240











  • $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    1 hour ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
    $endgroup$
    – jeremy radcliff
    1 hour ago















$begingroup$
Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Do you want the fewest steps to get to exactly $200$ or at least $200$?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
@JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@JohnDouma: Exactly $200$, obviously. Otherwise eight steps would suffice.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
@TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
$endgroup$
– John Douma
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@TonyK That is not obvious. In fact, the last paragraph before the EDIT implies otherwise.
$endgroup$
– John Douma
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
@JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
$endgroup$
– jeremy radcliff
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@JohnDouma It's exactly $200$, but I disagree with your comment that the last paragraph implies otherwise. I can try to take as many X2 steps as I can and still intend to not get past $200$.
$endgroup$
– jeremy radcliff
1 hour ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
    $endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    58 mins ago











  • $begingroup$
    @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    55 mins ago


















1












$begingroup$

Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:




  • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

  • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

  • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.

The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$.



This has three $1$'s, so to get there from a starting point of $1$, we need at least two operations of the second kind.



And it has a length of eight bits, so we need at least seven operations of the first or the third kind.



So the minimum number of operations is $9$, as required.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      0












      $begingroup$

      I'll make a try



      Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



      Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












        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: "69"
        ;
        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',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151946%2ffewest-number-of-steps-to-reach-200-using-special-calculator%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        2












        $begingroup$

        Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



        Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
          $endgroup$
          – dEmigOd
          58 mins ago











        • $begingroup$
          @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
          $endgroup$
          – Yves Daoust
          55 mins ago















        2












        $begingroup$

        Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



        Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
          $endgroup$
          – dEmigOd
          58 mins ago











        • $begingroup$
          @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
          $endgroup$
          – Yves Daoust
          55 mins ago













        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



        Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Setting the display to binary base, $[times2]$ inserts a $0$ to the right and $[+1]$ increments; if the rightmost digit is a zero, it just turns it to a $1$.



        Using these rules you build a number of $o$ ones and $z$ zeroes in $o-1+z$ keystrokes, starting from $1$. This seems close to optimal.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        Yves DaoustYves Daoust

        130k676229




        130k676229











        • $begingroup$
          you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
          $endgroup$
          – dEmigOd
          58 mins ago











        • $begingroup$
          @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
          $endgroup$
          – Yves Daoust
          55 mins ago
















        • $begingroup$
          you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
          $endgroup$
          – dEmigOd
          58 mins ago











        • $begingroup$
          @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
          $endgroup$
          – Yves Daoust
          55 mins ago















        $begingroup$
        you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
        $endgroup$
        – dEmigOd
        58 mins ago





        $begingroup$
        you just exactly reproduces the binary 200, why should we think it is not optimal?
        $endgroup$
        – dEmigOd
        58 mins ago













        $begingroup$
        @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
        $endgroup$
        – Yves Daoust
        55 mins ago




        $begingroup$
        @dEmigOd: I didn't prove that inserting the bits one by one with $times2$ or $times2+1$ is optimal.
        $endgroup$
        – Yves Daoust
        55 mins ago











        1












        $begingroup$

        Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:




        • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

        • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

        • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.

        The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$.



        This has three $1$'s, so to get there from a starting point of $1$, we need at least two operations of the second kind.



        And it has a length of eight bits, so we need at least seven operations of the first or the third kind.



        So the minimum number of operations is $9$, as required.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$

















          1












          $begingroup$

          Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:




          • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

          • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

          • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.

          The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$.



          This has three $1$'s, so to get there from a starting point of $1$, we need at least two operations of the second kind.



          And it has a length of eight bits, so we need at least seven operations of the first or the third kind.



          So the minimum number of operations is $9$, as required.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$















            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:




            • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

            • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

            • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.

            The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$.



            This has three $1$'s, so to get there from a starting point of $1$, we need at least two operations of the second kind.



            And it has a length of eight bits, so we need at least seven operations of the first or the third kind.



            So the minimum number of operations is $9$, as required.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Look at what the operations $+$ and $times$ do to the binary expansion of a number:




            • $times$ appends a $0$, and increases the length by one, leaving the total number of $1$'s unchanged;

            • if the final digit is $0$, then $+$ increases the number of $1$'s by one, but doesn't change the length;

            • if the final digit is $1$, then $+$ doesn't increase the total number of $1$'s (it may in fact decrease it), and doesn't increase the total length by more than $1$.

            The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$.



            This has three $1$'s, so to get there from a starting point of $1$, we need at least two operations of the second kind.



            And it has a length of eight bits, so we need at least seven operations of the first or the third kind.



            So the minimum number of operations is $9$, as required.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 56 mins ago









            TonyKTonyK

            43.1k356135




            43.1k356135





















                1












                $begingroup$

                You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



                Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$

















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



                  Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



                    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    You can proceed by induction on $n$, showing that the quickest way to reach any even number $2n$ involves doubling on the last step, which is clearly true for the base case $n=1$ (where doubling and adding $1$ have a tomato-tomahto relationship).



                    Now if the last step to reach $2n+2$ isn't doubling, it can only be adding $1$ from $2n+1$. But $2n+1$ can only be reached by adding $1$ from $2n$, at which point the inductive hypothesis says the next previous number was $n$. But you can get from $n$ to $2n+2$ more quickly in two steps: add $1$, then double. So the last step in the quickest route to $2n+2$ is doubling from $n+1$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 22 mins ago









                    Barry CipraBarry Cipra

                    60.2k654126




                    60.2k654126





















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        I'll make a try



                        Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



                        Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$

















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          I'll make a try



                          Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



                          Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            I'll make a try



                            Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



                            Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            I'll make a try



                            Since $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ you will need at least $8$ steps to reach $200$ (since we start from $1$ and we get a number of the form $2^a+...+2^l$) so it remains to show that $8$ steps are not enough.



                            Maybe you could try to show that if there was a solution with $8$ steps then it would contain only one $+1$ which contradicts the fact that in $200=2^7+2^6+2^3$ we have two $+$







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 1 hour ago









                            giannispapavgiannispapav

                            1,790324




                            1,790324



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151946%2ffewest-number-of-steps-to-reach-200-using-special-calculator%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

                                瀋陽號驅逐艦 目录 接收與服役 配置反潛直升機 武進三型性能升級 歷史 除役 參考資料 外部連結 导航菜单Taiwan Air Power海疆老兵-陽字號驅逐艦沿革World Navies Today: Taiwan (Republic of China)DD-839 USS POWER

                                Memorizing the KeyboardThe Norwegian Foreman''If the B…''The Consonant EaterThe Cherry TreeElle Rend Le Coeur Plus AmoureuxFill in the blanks with the number in wordsState of the UnionFind the missing elementsCircuit DiagramWhat's the name of the game show?

                                名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局