Some numbers are more equivalent than others












17












$begingroup$




         
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

   BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS




        

— from
Animal Farm
by George Orwell



A contrived simple
equivalence
rule applies neatly to numbers 0 through 99
but not to any other numbers.
Equivalences of numbers 0 through 19 are listed below,
accounting for almost all other eligible numbers as well,
where ‘=’ means “is equivalent to.”
(Each number is
reflexively
equivalent to itself.)




­  0 = no others     
­ 10 = no others

1 = no others     
­ 11 = 29 = 31 = 49 = 51 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

2 = no others     
­ 12 = 28 = 32 = 48 = 52 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

3 = no others     
­ 13 = 27 = 33 = 47 = 53 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

4 = no others     
­ 14 = 26 = 34 = 46 = 54 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

5 = no others     
­ 15 = 25 = 35 = 45 = 55 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

6 = no others     
­ 16 = 24 = 36 = 44 = 56 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

7 = no others     
­ 17 = 23 = 37 = 43 = 57 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

8 = no others     
­ 18 = 22 = 38 = 42 = 58 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

9 = no others     
­ 19 = 21 = 39 = 41 = 59 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99





      
What would be the entry for 20 in this list?




            
­ 20 = ___ . . . ?




Please use and explain the simplest possible rule,
not purely mathematical,
that accounts for every equivalence from 0 to 99.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apology for the lack of more specific tags: They would give away the solution.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Hurray, a humn puzzle! It's been a while.
    $endgroup$
    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday
















17












$begingroup$




         
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

   BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS




        

— from
Animal Farm
by George Orwell



A contrived simple
equivalence
rule applies neatly to numbers 0 through 99
but not to any other numbers.
Equivalences of numbers 0 through 19 are listed below,
accounting for almost all other eligible numbers as well,
where ‘=’ means “is equivalent to.”
(Each number is
reflexively
equivalent to itself.)




­  0 = no others     
­ 10 = no others

1 = no others     
­ 11 = 29 = 31 = 49 = 51 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

2 = no others     
­ 12 = 28 = 32 = 48 = 52 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

3 = no others     
­ 13 = 27 = 33 = 47 = 53 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

4 = no others     
­ 14 = 26 = 34 = 46 = 54 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

5 = no others     
­ 15 = 25 = 35 = 45 = 55 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

6 = no others     
­ 16 = 24 = 36 = 44 = 56 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

7 = no others     
­ 17 = 23 = 37 = 43 = 57 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

8 = no others     
­ 18 = 22 = 38 = 42 = 58 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

9 = no others     
­ 19 = 21 = 39 = 41 = 59 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99





      
What would be the entry for 20 in this list?




            
­ 20 = ___ . . . ?




Please use and explain the simplest possible rule,
not purely mathematical,
that accounts for every equivalence from 0 to 99.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apology for the lack of more specific tags: They would give away the solution.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Hurray, a humn puzzle! It's been a while.
    $endgroup$
    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday














17












17








17


3



$begingroup$




         
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

   BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS




        

— from
Animal Farm
by George Orwell



A contrived simple
equivalence
rule applies neatly to numbers 0 through 99
but not to any other numbers.
Equivalences of numbers 0 through 19 are listed below,
accounting for almost all other eligible numbers as well,
where ‘=’ means “is equivalent to.”
(Each number is
reflexively
equivalent to itself.)




­  0 = no others     
­ 10 = no others

1 = no others     
­ 11 = 29 = 31 = 49 = 51 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

2 = no others     
­ 12 = 28 = 32 = 48 = 52 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

3 = no others     
­ 13 = 27 = 33 = 47 = 53 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

4 = no others     
­ 14 = 26 = 34 = 46 = 54 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

5 = no others     
­ 15 = 25 = 35 = 45 = 55 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

6 = no others     
­ 16 = 24 = 36 = 44 = 56 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

7 = no others     
­ 17 = 23 = 37 = 43 = 57 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

8 = no others     
­ 18 = 22 = 38 = 42 = 58 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

9 = no others     
­ 19 = 21 = 39 = 41 = 59 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99





      
What would be the entry for 20 in this list?




            
­ 20 = ___ . . . ?




Please use and explain the simplest possible rule,
not purely mathematical,
that accounts for every equivalence from 0 to 99.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$






         
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

   BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS




        

— from
Animal Farm
by George Orwell



A contrived simple
equivalence
rule applies neatly to numbers 0 through 99
but not to any other numbers.
Equivalences of numbers 0 through 19 are listed below,
accounting for almost all other eligible numbers as well,
where ‘=’ means “is equivalent to.”
(Each number is
reflexively
equivalent to itself.)




­  0 = no others     
­ 10 = no others

1 = no others     
­ 11 = 29 = 31 = 49 = 51 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

2 = no others     
­ 12 = 28 = 32 = 48 = 52 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

3 = no others     
­ 13 = 27 = 33 = 47 = 53 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

4 = no others     
­ 14 = 26 = 34 = 46 = 54 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

5 = no others     
­ 15 = 25 = 35 = 45 = 55 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

6 = no others     
­ 16 = 24 = 36 = 44 = 56 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

7 = no others     
­ 17 = 23 = 37 = 43 = 57 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

8 = no others     
­ 18 = 22 = 38 = 42 = 58 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

9 = no others     
­ 19 = 21 = 39 = 41 = 59 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99





      
What would be the entry for 20 in this list?




            
­ 20 = ___ . . . ?




Please use and explain the simplest possible rule,
not purely mathematical,
that accounts for every equivalence from 0 to 99.







lateral-thinking






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked yesterday









humnhumn

14.7k442132




14.7k442132








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apology for the lack of more specific tags: They would give away the solution.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Hurray, a humn puzzle! It's been a while.
    $endgroup$
    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apology for the lack of more specific tags: They would give away the solution.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Hurray, a humn puzzle! It's been a while.
    $endgroup$
    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday








2




2




$begingroup$
Apology for the lack of more specific tags: They would give away the solution.
$endgroup$
– humn
yesterday




$begingroup$
Apology for the lack of more specific tags: They would give away the solution.
$endgroup$
– humn
yesterday




4




4




$begingroup$
Hurray, a humn puzzle! It's been a while.
$endgroup$
– Rand al'Thor
yesterday




$begingroup$
Hurray, a humn puzzle! It's been a while.
$endgroup$
– Rand al'Thor
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Answer:




20 = no others




Reason: (humn has told me that this is wrong but it's my favorite guess of mine)




Because you gave us a list of equivalences which are more equal than others. So we can assume the remaining numbers are less equal and therefore only equal to themselves.






Other guesses:




Xilpex's rule applies if no digits are zero. If any digit is zero (2 can be written as 02) then there are no equivalents


Because the rules are contrived so I can simply invent whatever I want for the rules that aren't given to me.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    23 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    9 hours ago





















2












$begingroup$

20 would be:




20 = 20 = 40 = 40 = 60 = 60 = 80 = 80 = 100




Explanation:




The rule (vertically) is: Line 1 + 1, then Line 2 - 1, and so on.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




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






$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
    $endgroup$
    – Xilpex
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plus there is no $100$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arnaud Mortier
    yesterday



















2












$begingroup$

  0 = no others      ­ 10 = no others      ­ 20 = no others

  1 = no others      ­ 1 1 = 2 9 = 3 1 = 4 9 = 5 1 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

  2 = no others      ­ 1 2 = 2 8 = 3 2 = 4 8 = 5 2 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

  3 = no others      ­ 1 3 = 2 7 = 3 3 = 4 7 = 5 3 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

  4 = no others      ­ 1 4 = 2 6 = 3 4 = 4 6 = 5 4 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

  5 = no others      ­ 1 5 = 2 5 = 3 5 = 4 5 = 5 5 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

  6 = no others      ­ 1 6 = 2 4 = 3 6 = 4 4 = 5 6 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

  7 = no others      ­ 1 7 = 2 3 = 3 7 = 4 3 = 5 7 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

  8 = no others      ­ 1 8 = 2 2 = 3 8 = 4 2 = 5 8 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

  9 = no others      ­ 1 9 = 2 1 = 3 9 = 4 1 = 5 9 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99

Delete the tens digit, like follow:



  0 = no others      ­ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9

  1 = no others      ­ 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1

  2 = no others      ­ 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2

  3 = no others      ­ 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3

  4 = no others      ­ 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4

  5 = no others      ­ 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5

  6 = no others      ­ 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6

  7 = no others      ­ 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7

  8 = no others      ­ 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8

  9 = no others      ­ 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9

So there is no rules to 0,




20 = no others







share|improve this answer










New contributor




user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
    $endgroup$
    – user58107
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago











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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f80992%2fsome-numbers-are-more-equivalent-than-others%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$

Answer:




20 = no others




Reason: (humn has told me that this is wrong but it's my favorite guess of mine)




Because you gave us a list of equivalences which are more equal than others. So we can assume the remaining numbers are less equal and therefore only equal to themselves.






Other guesses:




Xilpex's rule applies if no digits are zero. If any digit is zero (2 can be written as 02) then there are no equivalents


Because the rules are contrived so I can simply invent whatever I want for the rules that aren't given to me.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    23 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    9 hours ago


















3












$begingroup$

Answer:




20 = no others




Reason: (humn has told me that this is wrong but it's my favorite guess of mine)




Because you gave us a list of equivalences which are more equal than others. So we can assume the remaining numbers are less equal and therefore only equal to themselves.






Other guesses:




Xilpex's rule applies if no digits are zero. If any digit is zero (2 can be written as 02) then there are no equivalents


Because the rules are contrived so I can simply invent whatever I want for the rules that aren't given to me.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    23 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    9 hours ago
















3












3








3





$begingroup$

Answer:




20 = no others




Reason: (humn has told me that this is wrong but it's my favorite guess of mine)




Because you gave us a list of equivalences which are more equal than others. So we can assume the remaining numbers are less equal and therefore only equal to themselves.






Other guesses:




Xilpex's rule applies if no digits are zero. If any digit is zero (2 can be written as 02) then there are no equivalents


Because the rules are contrived so I can simply invent whatever I want for the rules that aren't given to me.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Answer:




20 = no others




Reason: (humn has told me that this is wrong but it's my favorite guess of mine)




Because you gave us a list of equivalences which are more equal than others. So we can assume the remaining numbers are less equal and therefore only equal to themselves.






Other guesses:




Xilpex's rule applies if no digits are zero. If any digit is zero (2 can be written as 02) then there are no equivalents


Because the rules are contrived so I can simply invent whatever I want for the rules that aren't given to me.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 9 hours ago

























answered yesterday









ferretferret

2,0151828




2,0151828












  • $begingroup$
    Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    23 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    9 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    23 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
    $endgroup$
    – ferret
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    9 hours ago


















$begingroup$
Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
$endgroup$
– humn
yesterday




$begingroup$
Correct answer, @ferret! But the reasoning is more complicated than necessary.
$endgroup$
– humn
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
$endgroup$
– ferret
23 hours ago




$begingroup$
@humn edited with a new "lateral thinking" attempt
$endgroup$
– ferret
23 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
$endgroup$
– humn
22 hours ago




$begingroup$
You're on the way, @ferret, and gave me an idea for another puzzle. Still missing the essential ingredient.
$endgroup$
– humn
22 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
$endgroup$
– ferret
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
@humn is it because they are rot13 pbagevirq?
$endgroup$
– ferret
20 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
$endgroup$
– humn
9 hours ago






$begingroup$
Thank you for playing along, @ferret. Pleasure to have met you.
$endgroup$
– humn
9 hours ago













2












$begingroup$

20 would be:




20 = 20 = 40 = 40 = 60 = 60 = 80 = 80 = 100




Explanation:




The rule (vertically) is: Line 1 + 1, then Line 2 - 1, and so on.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




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






$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
    $endgroup$
    – Xilpex
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plus there is no $100$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arnaud Mortier
    yesterday
















2












$begingroup$

20 would be:




20 = 20 = 40 = 40 = 60 = 60 = 80 = 80 = 100




Explanation:




The rule (vertically) is: Line 1 + 1, then Line 2 - 1, and so on.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




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






$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
    $endgroup$
    – Xilpex
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plus there is no $100$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arnaud Mortier
    yesterday














2












2








2





$begingroup$

20 would be:




20 = 20 = 40 = 40 = 60 = 60 = 80 = 80 = 100




Explanation:




The rule (vertically) is: Line 1 + 1, then Line 2 - 1, and so on.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




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






$endgroup$



20 would be:




20 = 20 = 40 = 40 = 60 = 60 = 80 = 80 = 100




Explanation:




The rule (vertically) is: Line 1 + 1, then Line 2 - 1, and so on.








share|improve this answer








New contributor




Xilpex 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






New contributor




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









answered yesterday









XilpexXilpex

245110




245110




New contributor




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





New contributor





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






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








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
    $endgroup$
    – Xilpex
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plus there is no $100$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arnaud Mortier
    yesterday














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
    $endgroup$
    – Xilpex
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plus there is no $100$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arnaud Mortier
    yesterday








3




3




$begingroup$
Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
$endgroup$
– humn
yesterday






$begingroup$
Thank you for taking the bait, Xilpex. Not quite the solution, though. For instance, it doesn't explain the entry for 10.
$endgroup$
– humn
yesterday






1




1




$begingroup$
@humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
$endgroup$
– Xilpex
yesterday




$begingroup$
@humn Ok. I'll see if there is any other answer... :D
$endgroup$
– Xilpex
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Plus there is no $100$.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud Mortier
yesterday




$begingroup$
Plus there is no $100$.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud Mortier
yesterday











2












$begingroup$

  0 = no others      ­ 10 = no others      ­ 20 = no others

  1 = no others      ­ 1 1 = 2 9 = 3 1 = 4 9 = 5 1 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

  2 = no others      ­ 1 2 = 2 8 = 3 2 = 4 8 = 5 2 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

  3 = no others      ­ 1 3 = 2 7 = 3 3 = 4 7 = 5 3 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

  4 = no others      ­ 1 4 = 2 6 = 3 4 = 4 6 = 5 4 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

  5 = no others      ­ 1 5 = 2 5 = 3 5 = 4 5 = 5 5 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

  6 = no others      ­ 1 6 = 2 4 = 3 6 = 4 4 = 5 6 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

  7 = no others      ­ 1 7 = 2 3 = 3 7 = 4 3 = 5 7 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

  8 = no others      ­ 1 8 = 2 2 = 3 8 = 4 2 = 5 8 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

  9 = no others      ­ 1 9 = 2 1 = 3 9 = 4 1 = 5 9 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99

Delete the tens digit, like follow:



  0 = no others      ­ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9

  1 = no others      ­ 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1

  2 = no others      ­ 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2

  3 = no others      ­ 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3

  4 = no others      ­ 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4

  5 = no others      ­ 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5

  6 = no others      ­ 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6

  7 = no others      ­ 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7

  8 = no others      ­ 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8

  9 = no others      ­ 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9

So there is no rules to 0,




20 = no others







share|improve this answer










New contributor




user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
    $endgroup$
    – user58107
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$

  0 = no others      ­ 10 = no others      ­ 20 = no others

  1 = no others      ­ 1 1 = 2 9 = 3 1 = 4 9 = 5 1 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

  2 = no others      ­ 1 2 = 2 8 = 3 2 = 4 8 = 5 2 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

  3 = no others      ­ 1 3 = 2 7 = 3 3 = 4 7 = 5 3 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

  4 = no others      ­ 1 4 = 2 6 = 3 4 = 4 6 = 5 4 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

  5 = no others      ­ 1 5 = 2 5 = 3 5 = 4 5 = 5 5 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

  6 = no others      ­ 1 6 = 2 4 = 3 6 = 4 4 = 5 6 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

  7 = no others      ­ 1 7 = 2 3 = 3 7 = 4 3 = 5 7 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

  8 = no others      ­ 1 8 = 2 2 = 3 8 = 4 2 = 5 8 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

  9 = no others      ­ 1 9 = 2 1 = 3 9 = 4 1 = 5 9 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99

Delete the tens digit, like follow:



  0 = no others      ­ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9

  1 = no others      ­ 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1

  2 = no others      ­ 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2

  3 = no others      ­ 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3

  4 = no others      ­ 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4

  5 = no others      ­ 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5

  6 = no others      ­ 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6

  7 = no others      ­ 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7

  8 = no others      ­ 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8

  9 = no others      ­ 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9

So there is no rules to 0,




20 = no others







share|improve this answer










New contributor




user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
    $endgroup$
    – user58107
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$

  0 = no others      ­ 10 = no others      ­ 20 = no others

  1 = no others      ­ 1 1 = 2 9 = 3 1 = 4 9 = 5 1 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

  2 = no others      ­ 1 2 = 2 8 = 3 2 = 4 8 = 5 2 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

  3 = no others      ­ 1 3 = 2 7 = 3 3 = 4 7 = 5 3 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

  4 = no others      ­ 1 4 = 2 6 = 3 4 = 4 6 = 5 4 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

  5 = no others      ­ 1 5 = 2 5 = 3 5 = 4 5 = 5 5 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

  6 = no others      ­ 1 6 = 2 4 = 3 6 = 4 4 = 5 6 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

  7 = no others      ­ 1 7 = 2 3 = 3 7 = 4 3 = 5 7 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

  8 = no others      ­ 1 8 = 2 2 = 3 8 = 4 2 = 5 8 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

  9 = no others      ­ 1 9 = 2 1 = 3 9 = 4 1 = 5 9 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99

Delete the tens digit, like follow:



  0 = no others      ­ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9

  1 = no others      ­ 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1

  2 = no others      ­ 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2

  3 = no others      ­ 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3

  4 = no others      ­ 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4

  5 = no others      ­ 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5

  6 = no others      ­ 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6

  7 = no others      ­ 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7

  8 = no others      ­ 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8

  9 = no others      ­ 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9

So there is no rules to 0,




20 = no others







share|improve this answer










New contributor




user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



  0 = no others      ­ 10 = no others      ­ 20 = no others

  1 = no others      ­ 1 1 = 2 9 = 3 1 = 4 9 = 5 1 = 69 = 71 = 89 = 91

  2 = no others      ­ 1 2 = 2 8 = 3 2 = 4 8 = 5 2 = 68 = 72 = 88 = 92

  3 = no others      ­ 1 3 = 2 7 = 3 3 = 4 7 = 5 3 = 67 = 73 = 87 = 93

  4 = no others      ­ 1 4 = 2 6 = 3 4 = 4 6 = 5 4 = 66 = 74 = 86 = 94

  5 = no others      ­ 1 5 = 2 5 = 3 5 = 4 5 = 5 5 = 65 = 75 = 85 = 95

  6 = no others      ­ 1 6 = 2 4 = 3 6 = 4 4 = 5 6 = 64 = 76 = 84 = 96

  7 = no others      ­ 1 7 = 2 3 = 3 7 = 4 3 = 5 7 = 63 = 77 = 83 = 97

  8 = no others      ­ 1 8 = 2 2 = 3 8 = 4 2 = 5 8 = 62 = 78 = 82 = 98

  9 = no others      ­ 1 9 = 2 1 = 3 9 = 4 1 = 5 9 = 61 = 79 = 81 = 99

Delete the tens digit, like follow:



  0 = no others      ­ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9

  1 = no others      ­ 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1

  2 = no others      ­ 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2

  3 = no others      ­ 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3

  4 = no others      ­ 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4

  5 = no others      ­ 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5 = 5

  6 = no others      ­ 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6 = 4 = 6

  7 = no others      ­ 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7 = 3 = 7

  8 = no others      ­ 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8 = 2 = 8

  9 = no others      ­ 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9 = 1 = 9

So there is no rules to 0,




20 = no others








share|improve this answer










New contributor




user58107 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 19 hours ago





















New contributor




user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 20 hours ago









user58107user58107

212




212




New contributor




user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user58107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
    $endgroup$
    – user58107
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
    $endgroup$
    – user58107
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
    $endgroup$
    – humn
    19 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
$endgroup$
– humn
19 hours ago






$begingroup$
Keep going, @user58107! It's simpler than that.
$endgroup$
– humn
19 hours ago






1




1




$begingroup$
look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
$endgroup$
– user58107
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
look the column, my English very poor, can't explain clarification.
$endgroup$
– user58107
19 hours ago












$begingroup$
Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
$endgroup$
– humn
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
Oh, oh oh oh, @user58107, this puzzle relies on English. (Big give-away.) Thank you for hitching the ride.
$endgroup$
– humn
19 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling 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%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f80992%2fsome-numbers-are-more-equivalent-than-others%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

Masuk log Menu navigasi

Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области