+1 vote

Best answer

Complex one :)

0 votes

0 votes

I got 106; it goes up by +3, +9, +17, +29, etc. Those numbers were thought to have an incremental addition too, so basically 3+b=9, 9+x=17, etc. with b=6 and x=8. There were incremental differences there too, because 1*2=2 between the 6 and 8, 2*2=4 between the 8 and 12, so the next pattern could be 2*3=6 between 12 and the increment, so adding 6 to 12 would be 18. Add 18 to the +29, then you have +47. Add 47 to 59 and you would get 106.

To call something a pattern we must have atleast three data points verified ( in your explanation 2*1, 2*2 ... etc., ).

If you had another number to check your theory you could have done it. But since I didn't give you another number to check this and the fact that you had only 2 data points backing up your theory should have been enough to confirm that the theory could be very easily wrong.

If you had another number to check your theory you could have done it. But since I didn't give you another number to check this and the fact that you had only 2 data points backing up your theory should have been enough to confirm that the theory could be very easily wrong.

Can I ask why specifically 3 data points are needed to back up the pattern (like why not at least 4, 5, etc.)

For instance a simple series like

1,2 can be assumed to have its next term as 1,2,4 (doubles every step) or 1,2,3 (simple incremental series) or 1,2,1 (repeating 1 and 2 series) or 1,2,5 (differences are increasing by 2 starting from 1 then 3 and so on ) etc.,

So atleast 3 or more data points are needed to predict the behavior of a series, or else we could be easily wrong.

1,2 can be assumed to have its next term as 1,2,4 (doubles every step) or 1,2,3 (simple incremental series) or 1,2,1 (repeating 1 and 2 series) or 1,2,5 (differences are increasing by 2 starting from 1 then 3 and so on ) etc.,

So atleast 3 or more data points are needed to predict the behavior of a series, or else we could be easily wrong.

...