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

awkward or wrong?

Do I need to consider instance restrictions when showing a language is in P?

How to terminate ping <dest> &

Is it insecure to send a password in a `curl` command?

Matrix using tikz package

usage and meaning of Up

Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?

Knife as defense against stray dogs

My friend is being a hypocrite

How to define limit operations in general topological spaces? Are nets able to do this?

Comment Box for Substitution Method of Integrals

Print last inputted byte

The average age of first marriage in Russia

Why is there so much iron?

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

What does "Four-F." mean?

Changing Color of error messages

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

Constant Current LED Circuit

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

Describing a chess game in a novel

Is honey really a supersaturated solution? Does heating to un-crystalize redissolve it or melt it?

Print a physical multiplication table

Worshiping one God at a time?



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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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




1




1




$begingroup$
@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


















3












$begingroup$

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 $1$.

Therefore:



  • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

  • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.

The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    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
      1 hour ago











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


















    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









        3












        $begingroup$

        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 $1$.

        Therefore:



        • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

        • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.

        The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$

















          3












          $begingroup$

          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 $1$.

          Therefore:



          • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

          • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.

          The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            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 $1$.

            Therefore:



            • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

            • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.

            The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.






            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 $1$.

            Therefore:



            • you can increase the length by one, but this won't increase the number of $1$'s;

            • you can increase the number of $1$'s by one, but this won't increase the length.

            The binary expansion of $200$ is $200_10=11001000_2$. This has three $1$'s, and a length of eight. Starting from $1$, we must increase the length by seven, and increase the number of $1$'s by two. So this requires at least nine steps.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 5 mins ago

























            answered 1 hour ago









            TonyKTonyK

            43.2k356135




            43.2k356135





















                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
                  1 hour ago











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











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











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
















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











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















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





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













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




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











                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 28 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

                                Best approach to update all entries in a list that is paginated?Best way to add items to a paginated listChoose Your Country: Best Usability approachUpdate list when a user is viewing the list without annoying themWhen would the best day to update your webpage be?What should happen when I add a Row to a paginated, sorted listShould I adopt infinite scrolling or classical pagination?How to show user that page objects automatically updateWhat is the best location to locate the comments section in a list pageBest way to combine filtering and selecting items in a listWhen one of two inputs must be updated to satisfy a consistency criteria, which should you update (if at all)?

                                Тонконіг бульбистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Екологія | Господарське значення | Примітки | Див. також | Література | Джерела | Посилання | Навігаційне меню1114601320038-241116202404kew-435458Poa bulbosaЭлектронный каталог сосудистых растений Азиатской России [Електронний каталог судинних рослин Азіатської Росії]Малышев Л. Л. Дикие родичи культурных растений. Poa bulbosa L. - Мятлик луковичный. [Малишев Л. Л. Дикі родичи культурних рослин. Poa bulbosa L. - Тонконіг бульбистий.]Мятлик (POA) Сем. Злаки (Мятликовые) [Тонконіг (POA) Род. Злаки (Тонконогові)]Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Description from Flora of China) [Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Опис від Флора Китаю)]Poa bulbosa L. – lipnice cibulkatá / lipnica cibulkatáPoa bulbosa в базі даних Poa bulbosa на сайті Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Global Biodiversity Information Facility» (GBIF)Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Euro + Med PlantBase» — інформаційному ресурсі для Євро-середземноморського розмаїття рослинPoa bulbosa L. на сайті «Плантариум»

                                Вунгтау (аеропорт) Загальні відомості | Див. також | Посилання | Навігаційне меню10°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.0833310°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.083337731608Vinh AirportVinh airport facelift improves serviceвиправивши або дописавши їївиправивши або дописавши їїр