Use 2, 0, 1 and 8 to make 109

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
29
down vote

favorite
5












Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.



Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.



Here are some examples to this problem:



  • Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67

  • Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

  • Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.










share|improve this question























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – GentlePurpleRain♦
    Sep 24 at 15:32














up vote
29
down vote

favorite
5












Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.



Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.



Here are some examples to this problem:



  • Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67

  • Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

  • Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.










share|improve this question























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – GentlePurpleRain♦
    Sep 24 at 15:32












up vote
29
down vote

favorite
5









up vote
29
down vote

favorite
5






5





Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.



Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.



Here are some examples to this problem:



  • Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67

  • Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

  • Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.










share|improve this question















Assemble a formula using the numbers $2$, $0$, $1$, and $8$ in any order that equals 109. You may use the operations $x + y$, $x - y$, $x times y$, $x div y$, $x!$, $sqrtx$, $sqrt[leftroot-2uproot2x]y$ and $x^y$, as long as all operands are either $2$, $0$, $1$, or $8$. Operands may of course also be derived from calculations e.g. $10+(sqrt8*2)!$. You may also use brackets to clarify order of operations, and you may concatenate two or more of the four digits you start with (such as $2$ and $8$ to make the number $28$) if you wish. You may only use each of the starting digits once and you must use all four of them. I'm afraid that concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted, but answers with concatenations which get $109$ will get plus one from me.



Double, triple, etc. factorials (n-druple-factorials), such as $4!! = 4 times 2$ are not allowed, but factorials of factorials are fine, such as $(4!)! = 24!$. I will upvote answers with double, triple and n-druple-factorials which get 109, but will not mark them as correct.



Here are some examples to this problem:



  • Use 2 0 1 and 8 to make 67

  • Make numbers 93 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

  • Make numbers 1 - 30 using the digits 2, 0, 1, 8

many thanks to the authors of these questions for inspiring this question.







mathematics






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Sep 11 at 16:37

























asked Sep 10 at 22:17









tom

1,8061325




1,8061325











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – GentlePurpleRain♦
    Sep 24 at 15:32
















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – GentlePurpleRain♦
    Sep 24 at 15:32















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32




Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– GentlePurpleRain♦
Sep 24 at 15:32










17 Answers
17






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
55
down vote



accepted










I think...




$sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$







share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    70
    down vote













    Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:




    $108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.




    Explanation:




    Formally:
    $$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$

    where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.







    share|improve this answer


















    • 14




      that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
      – Hugh
      Sep 11 at 0:56







    • 1




      (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
      – TheSimpliFire
      Sep 11 at 6:15






    • 1




      Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
      – JuanRocamonde
      Sep 11 at 16:20






    • 3




      @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
      – Lord Farquaad
      Sep 11 at 17:41







    • 5




      If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
      – Tanner Swett
      Sep 13 at 5:22

















    up vote
    24
    down vote













    This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.



    Solution:




    $$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$




    Explanation:




    First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
    Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.







    share|improve this answer
















    • 3




      Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 8:12











    • I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
      – orlp
      Sep 14 at 6:58






    • 2




      @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
      – Carl Schildkraut
      Sep 14 at 13:49

















    up vote
    19
    down vote













    If you allow




    decimals




    then you can do




    $$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$







    share|improve this answer




















    • Sorry no decimals, but plus one
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 6:19






    • 1




      @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
      – Carl Schildkraut
      Sep 11 at 6:20






    • 2




      Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 12:19










    • When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
      – Agi Hammerthief
      Sep 13 at 14:16










    • @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
      – IanF1
      Sep 15 at 12:02

















    up vote
    18
    down vote













    The trick is to:




    ... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109


    (in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)







    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      i like this one.
      – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
      Sep 11 at 10:15






    • 2




      great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 12:27

















    up vote
    13
    down vote













    Hmmm, possibly:




    Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.




    and for posterity:




    $20!^15+1+8$







    share|improve this answer


















    • 7




      +1 that was my first guess also!
      – Christoph
      Sep 11 at 4:51






    • 1




      Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 6:18






    • 2




      I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
      – seeellayewhy
      Sep 11 at 18:04










    • it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
      – JonMark Perry
      Sep 11 at 18:55

















    up vote
    10
    down vote













    This probably won't count. It uses !, but not in x!.




    108 + !2




    Explanation




    !n is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular !2 = 1.







    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      Plus one, but sorry not correct
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 6:21

















    up vote
    9
    down vote














    $$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$







    share|improve this answer




















    • Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 8:14











    • @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
      – trolley813
      Sep 11 at 9:29










    • @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 12:20










    • $(+1)$ I like this one :)
      – user477343
      Sep 12 at 12:13

















    up vote
    9
    down vote













    I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet




    $108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$




    or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above




    $(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$




    or




    $8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$




    I was thinking about trying to




    Change the base of the numbers




    but didn't get anywhere with that idea...



    Looking forward to seeing the solution!






    share|improve this answer
















    • 3




      Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 12:30

















    up vote
    8
    down vote













    I break the rules, BUT!



    work with 1 and 20
    1 - 20 = -19




    109 = arccos(sin(-19))







    share|improve this answer






















    • Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 12:35






    • 2




      How did you find this answer?
      – hkBst
      Sep 11 at 16:48






    • 2




      The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
      – ponut64
      Sep 12 at 9:34







    • 1




      This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
      – Tanner Swett
      Sep 13 at 5:26

















    up vote
    5
    down vote













    This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed




    Assuming you can have leading 0's...

    $ 2^0 = 1$

    $ sqrt81 = 09$

    Concatenate the two

    $109$







    share|improve this answer




















    • Nice try, plus one
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 16:35

















    up vote
    5
    down vote













    I have another trigonometric answer.




    8^2 - arctan(0-1) = 109; // the base of tangents is 45, subtract -45, add 45 to 64







    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      neat solution :-) plus one
      – tom
      Sep 12 at 23:05

















    up vote
    4
    down vote














    We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
    now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109







    share|improve this answer






















    • Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
      – Glorfindel
      Sep 11 at 9:11






    • 1




      Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
      – tom
      Sep 11 at 12:32

















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:




    Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
    $$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$




    Explained:




    !2 == false, and !false == true. True is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.







    share|improve this answer


















    • 1




      Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
      – tom
      Sep 12 at 9:03

















    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :




    enter image description here







    share|improve this answer




















    • ok, plus one for invention
      – tom
      Sep 12 at 9:02










    • Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
      – Sentinel
      Sep 12 at 20:33

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring




    $$dfrac218020=109$$







    share|improve this answer






















    • Digits are only allowed to be used once.
      – Jaap Scherphuis
      Sep 12 at 12:31










    • Agh, must have glossed over that one.
      – Ruben Dijkstra
      Sep 12 at 12:43

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:




    (2 * 82) - (8 * 2) - (1/2 * 8) + 10 = 109







    share|improve this answer






















    • $109 = 108+2^0$...
      – Surb
      yesterday











    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    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%2f71885%2fuse-2-0-1-and-8-to-make-109%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    17 Answers
    17






    active

    oldest

    votes








    17 Answers
    17






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    55
    down vote



    accepted










    I think...




    $sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$







    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      55
      down vote



      accepted










      I think...




      $sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$







      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        55
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        55
        down vote



        accepted






        I think...




        $sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$







        share|improve this answer














        I think...




        $sqrtfrac12!8! + 0! = sqrt11881 = 109$








        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Sep 11 at 13:27









        Surb

        551136




        551136










        answered Sep 11 at 13:23









        bluestapler

        56626




        56626




















            up vote
            70
            down vote













            Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:




            $108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.




            Explanation:




            Formally:
            $$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$

            where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.







            share|improve this answer


















            • 14




              that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
              – Hugh
              Sep 11 at 0:56







            • 1




              (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
              – TheSimpliFire
              Sep 11 at 6:15






            • 1




              Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
              – JuanRocamonde
              Sep 11 at 16:20






            • 3




              @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
              – Lord Farquaad
              Sep 11 at 17:41







            • 5




              If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:22














            up vote
            70
            down vote













            Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:




            $108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.




            Explanation:




            Formally:
            $$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$

            where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.







            share|improve this answer


















            • 14




              that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
              – Hugh
              Sep 11 at 0:56







            • 1




              (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
              – TheSimpliFire
              Sep 11 at 6:15






            • 1




              Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
              – JuanRocamonde
              Sep 11 at 16:20






            • 3




              @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
              – Lord Farquaad
              Sep 11 at 17:41







            • 5




              If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:22












            up vote
            70
            down vote










            up vote
            70
            down vote









            Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:




            $108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.




            Explanation:




            Formally:
            $$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$

            where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.







            share|improve this answer














            Probably not the intended answer, but, I propose:




            $108+sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2$, with infinitely many square roots.




            Explanation:




            Formally:
            $$sqrtsqrtldots sqrt2=lim_limitsnto infty s_n=1$$

            where $s_0=2$ and $s_n+1=sqrts_n$.








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 11 at 4:59









            JonMark Perry

            14.9k52972




            14.9k52972










            answered Sep 11 at 0:11









            Surb

            551136




            551136







            • 14




              that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
              – Hugh
              Sep 11 at 0:56







            • 1




              (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
              – TheSimpliFire
              Sep 11 at 6:15






            • 1




              Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
              – JuanRocamonde
              Sep 11 at 16:20






            • 3




              @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
              – Lord Farquaad
              Sep 11 at 17:41







            • 5




              If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:22












            • 14




              that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
              – Hugh
              Sep 11 at 0:56







            • 1




              (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
              – TheSimpliFire
              Sep 11 at 6:15






            • 1




              Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
              – JuanRocamonde
              Sep 11 at 16:20






            • 3




              @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
              – Lord Farquaad
              Sep 11 at 17:41







            • 5




              If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:22







            14




            14




            that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
            – Hugh
            Sep 11 at 0:56





            that's an amazing answer --- I never would have thought of that :D
            – Hugh
            Sep 11 at 0:56





            1




            1




            (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
            – TheSimpliFire
            Sep 11 at 6:15




            (+1) very nice. Thanks for following my proposal! :)
            – TheSimpliFire
            Sep 11 at 6:15




            1




            1




            Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
            – JuanRocamonde
            Sep 11 at 16:20




            Technically? What is technically? @Battle Mathematics are not a technique, are a science. And x^(1/n) when n tends to infinite is always 1, since x^0 is 1, for any positive x greater than one.
            – JuanRocamonde
            Sep 11 at 16:20




            3




            3




            @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
            – Lord Farquaad
            Sep 11 at 17:41





            @Battle The rules also allow for $sqrtx$ any number of times, which is what Surb's done here. Also, $1/x^1/n$ does equal 1 when $n$ tends towards infinity. That's how limits work. Without being able to say "the limit of $x$ as $n$ tends towards infinity equals..." calculus (and many other math disciplines) fall apart. We just wouldn't be able to do any calculations involving infinity.
            – Lord Farquaad
            Sep 11 at 17:41





            5




            5




            If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
            – Tanner Swett
            Sep 13 at 5:22




            If you want to be "technically", then the question allows taking the square root any number of times, but it doesn't allow taking an infinitely iterated square root, because an taking an infinitely iterated square root isn't taking the square root any number of times. There's no standard definition for literally taking a square root infinitely many times; the best you can do is take the limit of a sequence of increasingly many square roots.
            – Tanner Swett
            Sep 13 at 5:22










            up vote
            24
            down vote













            This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.



            Solution:




            $$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$




            Explanation:




            First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
            Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.







            share|improve this answer
















            • 3




              Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:12











            • I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
              – orlp
              Sep 14 at 6:58






            • 2




              @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 14 at 13:49














            up vote
            24
            down vote













            This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.



            Solution:




            $$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$




            Explanation:




            First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
            Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.







            share|improve this answer
















            • 3




              Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:12











            • I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
              – orlp
              Sep 14 at 6:58






            • 2




              @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 14 at 13:49












            up vote
            24
            down vote










            up vote
            24
            down vote









            This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.



            Solution:




            $$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$




            Explanation:




            First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
            Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.







            share|improve this answer












            This is technically a solution with n-druple factorials. It is not a good solution.



            Solution:




            $$frac(10!!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(2+8)!!!.$$




            Explanation:




            First, we note that $2+8=10$. In particular, we can construct the number $10cdot 7cdot 4cdot 1=10!!!=280$ in two different ways.
            Once we have two copies of $280$, we can construct the number $$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$ (that's $171$ factorials, so it equals $280cdot 109$), and then simply divide by $280$ again. This technique can be used to boringly nuke every problem of this form that allows for n-druple factorials: if you want to get some number $K$, you can use the property that $2+8=10$, so you can get two copies of $N$ for some large $N$ (by repeatedly taking factorials from $10$, for example; in terms of big $N$, any $Ngeq 2K$ should do it), and then you can take $N!_N-K$ ($N-K$ factorials) to get the number $Ncdot K$ - then you just divide by $N$ and now you have $K$.








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 5:59









            Carl Schildkraut

            5388




            5388







            • 3




              Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:12











            • I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
              – orlp
              Sep 14 at 6:58






            • 2




              @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 14 at 13:49












            • 3




              Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:12











            • I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
              – orlp
              Sep 14 at 6:58






            • 2




              @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 14 at 13:49







            3




            3




            Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 8:12





            Great, general solution! I almost want to mark this as the solution for its ingenuity, but there is a simpler way... You get the plus one of course, and I am so glad that I excluded multiple factorials
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 8:12













            I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
            – orlp
            Sep 14 at 6:58




            I'm confused, isn't $280!!!!...$ absolutely astronomical compare the the denominator?
            – orlp
            Sep 14 at 6:58




            2




            2




            @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
            – Carl Schildkraut
            Sep 14 at 13:49




            @orlp This is not repeatedly applying the factorial operation, this is the multiple factorial. $n!_(k)$ is the product of all the positive integers $m leq n$ so that $mequiv nbmod k$.
            – Carl Schildkraut
            Sep 14 at 13:49










            up vote
            19
            down vote













            If you allow




            decimals




            then you can do




            $$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$







            share|improve this answer




















            • Sorry no decimals, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:19






            • 1




              @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 11 at 6:20






            • 2




              Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:19










            • When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
              – Agi Hammerthief
              Sep 13 at 14:16










            • @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
              – IanF1
              Sep 15 at 12:02














            up vote
            19
            down vote













            If you allow




            decimals




            then you can do




            $$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$







            share|improve this answer




















            • Sorry no decimals, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:19






            • 1




              @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 11 at 6:20






            • 2




              Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:19










            • When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
              – Agi Hammerthief
              Sep 13 at 14:16










            • @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
              – IanF1
              Sep 15 at 12:02












            up vote
            19
            down vote










            up vote
            19
            down vote









            If you allow




            decimals




            then you can do




            $$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$







            share|improve this answer












            If you allow




            decimals




            then you can do




            $$109=(.1)^-2 + 8 + 0!$$








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 6:02









            Carl Schildkraut

            5388




            5388











            • Sorry no decimals, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:19






            • 1




              @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 11 at 6:20






            • 2




              Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:19










            • When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
              – Agi Hammerthief
              Sep 13 at 14:16










            • @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
              – IanF1
              Sep 15 at 12:02
















            • Sorry no decimals, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:19






            • 1




              @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
              – Carl Schildkraut
              Sep 11 at 6:20






            • 2




              Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:19










            • When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
              – Agi Hammerthief
              Sep 13 at 14:16










            • @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
              – IanF1
              Sep 15 at 12:02















            Sorry no decimals, but plus one
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 6:19




            Sorry no decimals, but plus one
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 6:19




            1




            1




            @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
            – Carl Schildkraut
            Sep 11 at 6:20




            @tom Oh well. Do you know that a solution exists using only the operations you have allowed?
            – Carl Schildkraut
            Sep 11 at 6:20




            2




            2




            Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:19




            Yes there is a solution.... I will start giving hints soon if people don't get it...
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:19












            When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
            – Agi Hammerthief
            Sep 13 at 14:16




            When I plug your solution into my calculator, it gives me 7.1.
            – Agi Hammerthief
            Sep 13 at 14:16












            @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
            – IanF1
            Sep 15 at 12:02




            @AgiHammerthief presumably you are calculating (0.1) - 2 + 8 + 0! rather than raising 0.1 to the -2th power.
            – IanF1
            Sep 15 at 12:02










            up vote
            18
            down vote













            The trick is to:




            ... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109


            (in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)







            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              i like this one.
              – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
              Sep 11 at 10:15






            • 2




              great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:27














            up vote
            18
            down vote













            The trick is to:




            ... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109


            (in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)







            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              i like this one.
              – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
              Sep 11 at 10:15






            • 2




              great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:27












            up vote
            18
            down vote










            up vote
            18
            down vote









            The trick is to:




            ... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109


            (in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)







            share|improve this answer












            The trick is to:




            ... count in hexadecimal: 21 × 8 + 0! = 109


            (in decimal: 21h = 33 and 109h = 265)








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 10:09









            xhienne

            3,267529




            3,267529







            • 1




              i like this one.
              – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
              Sep 11 at 10:15






            • 2




              great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:27












            • 1




              i like this one.
              – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
              Sep 11 at 10:15






            • 2




              great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:27







            1




            1




            i like this one.
            – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
            Sep 11 at 10:15




            i like this one.
            – Shahriar Mahmud Sajid
            Sep 11 at 10:15




            2




            2




            great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:27




            great! I like this too, plus one, but sorry there is a decimal solution
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:27










            up vote
            13
            down vote













            Hmmm, possibly:




            Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.




            and for posterity:




            $20!^15+1+8$







            share|improve this answer


















            • 7




              +1 that was my first guess also!
              – Christoph
              Sep 11 at 4:51






            • 1




              Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:18






            • 2




              I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
              – seeellayewhy
              Sep 11 at 18:04










            • it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
              – JonMark Perry
              Sep 11 at 18:55














            up vote
            13
            down vote













            Hmmm, possibly:




            Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.




            and for posterity:




            $20!^15+1+8$







            share|improve this answer


















            • 7




              +1 that was my first guess also!
              – Christoph
              Sep 11 at 4:51






            • 1




              Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:18






            • 2




              I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
              – seeellayewhy
              Sep 11 at 18:04










            • it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
              – JonMark Perry
              Sep 11 at 18:55












            up vote
            13
            down vote










            up vote
            13
            down vote









            Hmmm, possibly:




            Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.




            and for posterity:




            $20!^15+1+8$







            share|improve this answer














            Hmmm, possibly:




            Place a vertical mirror by the $2$ to get a $5$. Concatenate the $5$ with the $0$ to get $50$ and take the $38$-factorial (using $38$ exclamations): $50!^38=50cdot12=600$, and then add $1^8=1$: $50!^38+1^8=601$. Turn the $601$ upside-down to get $109$.




            and for posterity:




            $20!^15+1+8$








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 11 at 8:07

























            answered Sep 11 at 4:33









            JonMark Perry

            14.9k52972




            14.9k52972







            • 7




              +1 that was my first guess also!
              – Christoph
              Sep 11 at 4:51






            • 1




              Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:18






            • 2




              I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
              – seeellayewhy
              Sep 11 at 18:04










            • it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
              – JonMark Perry
              Sep 11 at 18:55












            • 7




              +1 that was my first guess also!
              – Christoph
              Sep 11 at 4:51






            • 1




              Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:18






            • 2




              I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
              – seeellayewhy
              Sep 11 at 18:04










            • it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
              – JonMark Perry
              Sep 11 at 18:55







            7




            7




            +1 that was my first guess also!
            – Christoph
            Sep 11 at 4:51




            +1 that was my first guess also!
            – Christoph
            Sep 11 at 4:51




            1




            1




            Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 6:18




            Plus one .... Amazing. :-).
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 6:18




            2




            2




            I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
            – seeellayewhy
            Sep 11 at 18:04




            I'm missing something here... how does 50!^38 = 50 * 12? Isn't 50!^38 a ridiculously large number?
            – seeellayewhy
            Sep 11 at 18:04












            it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
            – JonMark Perry
            Sep 11 at 18:55




            it's a multi-factorial, see my answer to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/71748/…
            – JonMark Perry
            Sep 11 at 18:55










            up vote
            10
            down vote













            This probably won't count. It uses !, but not in x!.




            108 + !2




            Explanation




            !n is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular !2 = 1.







            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              Plus one, but sorry not correct
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:21














            up vote
            10
            down vote













            This probably won't count. It uses !, but not in x!.




            108 + !2




            Explanation




            !n is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular !2 = 1.







            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              Plus one, but sorry not correct
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:21












            up vote
            10
            down vote










            up vote
            10
            down vote









            This probably won't count. It uses !, but not in x!.




            108 + !2




            Explanation




            !n is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular !2 = 1.







            share|improve this answer












            This probably won't count. It uses !, but not in x!.




            108 + !2




            Explanation




            !n is the number of derangements of n objects. In particular !2 = 1.








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 4:50









            Steve B

            2868




            2868







            • 1




              Plus one, but sorry not correct
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:21












            • 1




              Plus one, but sorry not correct
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 6:21







            1




            1




            Plus one, but sorry not correct
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 6:21




            Plus one, but sorry not correct
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 6:21










            up vote
            9
            down vote














            $$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$







            share|improve this answer




















            • Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:14











            • @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
              – trolley813
              Sep 11 at 9:29










            • @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:20










            • $(+1)$ I like this one :)
              – user477343
              Sep 12 at 12:13














            up vote
            9
            down vote














            $$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$







            share|improve this answer




















            • Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:14











            • @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
              – trolley813
              Sep 11 at 9:29










            • @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:20










            • $(+1)$ I like this one :)
              – user477343
              Sep 12 at 12:13












            up vote
            9
            down vote










            up vote
            9
            down vote










            $$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$







            share|improve this answer













            $$8+2^0=9=09implies 18+2^0=109$$








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 6:22









            TheSimpliFire

            1,771324




            1,771324











            • Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:14











            • @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
              – trolley813
              Sep 11 at 9:29










            • @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:20










            • $(+1)$ I like this one :)
              – user477343
              Sep 12 at 12:13
















            • Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 8:14











            • @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
              – trolley813
              Sep 11 at 9:29










            • @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:20










            • $(+1)$ I like this one :)
              – user477343
              Sep 12 at 12:13















            Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 8:14





            Nice try, sorry not correct, but plus one
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 8:14













            @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
            – trolley813
            Sep 11 at 9:29




            @TheSimpliFire Plus one also. It probably can be tagged as lateral thinking (@tom your problem states that you can concatenate numbers, not digits/digit sequences, so technically it's correct)
            – trolley813
            Sep 11 at 9:29












            @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:20




            @trolley813 - will edit the question to make this absolutely clear...
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:20












            $(+1)$ I like this one :)
            – user477343
            Sep 12 at 12:13




            $(+1)$ I like this one :)
            – user477343
            Sep 12 at 12:13










            up vote
            9
            down vote













            I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet




            $108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$




            or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above




            $(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$




            or




            $8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$




            I was thinking about trying to




            Change the base of the numbers




            but didn't get anywhere with that idea...



            Looking forward to seeing the solution!






            share|improve this answer
















            • 3




              Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:30














            up vote
            9
            down vote













            I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet




            $108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$




            or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above




            $(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$




            or




            $8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$




            I was thinking about trying to




            Change the base of the numbers




            but didn't get anywhere with that idea...



            Looking forward to seeing the solution!






            share|improve this answer
















            • 3




              Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:30












            up vote
            9
            down vote










            up vote
            9
            down vote









            I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet




            $108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$




            or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above




            $(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$




            or




            $8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$




            I was thinking about trying to




            Change the base of the numbers




            but didn't get anywhere with that idea...



            Looking forward to seeing the solution!






            share|improve this answer












            I have a few silly answers :) Though, frustratingly, I haven't been able to solve it yet




            $108$++ $= 109$ which you might also write as $108$+$2$




            or if we are allowing transformation of numbers as I've seen above




            $(2+8)$ concatenated with $0$, with a vertical line (using the $1$) on the RHS to turn it into a $9$




            or




            $8-2=6$, which rotated gives $9$, then concatenate $10$ to give $109$




            I was thinking about trying to




            Change the base of the numbers




            but didn't get anywhere with that idea...



            Looking forward to seeing the solution!







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 9:50









            Namyts

            4445




            4445







            • 3




              Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:30












            • 3




              Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:30







            3




            3




            Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:30




            Great answers, I love the 108++. Good job - plus thanks for posting and using the hidden/reveal in your answer. Hope you enjou Puzzling SE (oh and plus one)
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:30










            up vote
            8
            down vote













            I break the rules, BUT!



            work with 1 and 20
            1 - 20 = -19




            109 = arccos(sin(-19))







            share|improve this answer






















            • Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:35






            • 2




              How did you find this answer?
              – hkBst
              Sep 11 at 16:48






            • 2




              The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
              – ponut64
              Sep 12 at 9:34







            • 1




              This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:26














            up vote
            8
            down vote













            I break the rules, BUT!



            work with 1 and 20
            1 - 20 = -19




            109 = arccos(sin(-19))







            share|improve this answer






















            • Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:35






            • 2




              How did you find this answer?
              – hkBst
              Sep 11 at 16:48






            • 2




              The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
              – ponut64
              Sep 12 at 9:34







            • 1




              This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:26












            up vote
            8
            down vote










            up vote
            8
            down vote









            I break the rules, BUT!



            work with 1 and 20
            1 - 20 = -19




            109 = arccos(sin(-19))







            share|improve this answer














            I break the rules, BUT!



            work with 1 and 20
            1 - 20 = -19




            109 = arccos(sin(-19))








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 11 at 9:19

























            answered Sep 11 at 9:02









            ponut64

            1312




            1312











            • Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:35






            • 2




              How did you find this answer?
              – hkBst
              Sep 11 at 16:48






            • 2




              The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
              – ponut64
              Sep 12 at 9:34







            • 1




              This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:26
















            • Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:35






            • 2




              How did you find this answer?
              – hkBst
              Sep 11 at 16:48






            • 2




              The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
              – ponut64
              Sep 12 at 9:34







            • 1




              This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
              – Tanner Swett
              Sep 13 at 5:26















            Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:35




            Ok, you did not use the 8, but that is an interesting and inventive answer - I think it is pretty clever - +1, but not the solution I'm afraid. (I have editted the question to make it clear that you need to use all 4 of the digits)
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:35




            2




            2




            How did you find this answer?
            – hkBst
            Sep 11 at 16:48




            How did you find this answer?
            – hkBst
            Sep 11 at 16:48




            2




            2




            The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
            – ponut64
            Sep 12 at 9:34





            The base of sines and cosines is 90 degrees. You can think of one being plus 90 (sine) and the other being zero (cosine). 109 is 19 different from 90. If you take your difference from 90 (negative number, sine) and then use that as the difference from zero (anticosine), you can solve this. That only applies when your numbers are in the domain of 1 sine and 1 cosine.
            – ponut64
            Sep 12 at 9:34





            1




            1




            This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
            – Tanner Swett
            Sep 13 at 5:26




            This can be improved a little bit, as $1^8 - 20 = -19$
            – Tanner Swett
            Sep 13 at 5:26










            up vote
            5
            down vote













            This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed




            Assuming you can have leading 0's...

            $ 2^0 = 1$

            $ sqrt81 = 09$

            Concatenate the two

            $109$







            share|improve this answer




















            • Nice try, plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 16:35














            up vote
            5
            down vote













            This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed




            Assuming you can have leading 0's...

            $ 2^0 = 1$

            $ sqrt81 = 09$

            Concatenate the two

            $109$







            share|improve this answer




















            • Nice try, plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 16:35












            up vote
            5
            down vote










            up vote
            5
            down vote









            This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed




            Assuming you can have leading 0's...

            $ 2^0 = 1$

            $ sqrt81 = 09$

            Concatenate the two

            $109$







            share|improve this answer












            This won't be correct (concatenation of numbers from calculations is not permitted), but this is a way to cheese it, were that allowed




            Assuming you can have leading 0's...

            $ 2^0 = 1$

            $ sqrt81 = 09$

            Concatenate the two

            $109$








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 11 at 16:02









            Kyle Fairns

            1513




            1513











            • Nice try, plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 16:35
















            • Nice try, plus one
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 16:35















            Nice try, plus one
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 16:35




            Nice try, plus one
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 16:35










            up vote
            5
            down vote













            I have another trigonometric answer.




            8^2 - arctan(0-1) = 109; // the base of tangents is 45, subtract -45, add 45 to 64







            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              neat solution :-) plus one
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 23:05














            up vote
            5
            down vote













            I have another trigonometric answer.




            8^2 - arctan(0-1) = 109; // the base of tangents is 45, subtract -45, add 45 to 64







            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              neat solution :-) plus one
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 23:05












            up vote
            5
            down vote










            up vote
            5
            down vote









            I have another trigonometric answer.




            8^2 - arctan(0-1) = 109; // the base of tangents is 45, subtract -45, add 45 to 64







            share|improve this answer












            I have another trigonometric answer.




            8^2 - arctan(0-1) = 109; // the base of tangents is 45, subtract -45, add 45 to 64








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 12 at 18:58









            ponut64

            1312




            1312







            • 1




              neat solution :-) plus one
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 23:05












            • 1




              neat solution :-) plus one
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 23:05







            1




            1




            neat solution :-) plus one
            – tom
            Sep 12 at 23:05




            neat solution :-) plus one
            – tom
            Sep 12 at 23:05










            up vote
            4
            down vote














            We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
            now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109







            share|improve this answer






















            • Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
              – Glorfindel
              Sep 11 at 9:11






            • 1




              Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:32














            up vote
            4
            down vote














            We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
            now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109







            share|improve this answer






















            • Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
              – Glorfindel
              Sep 11 at 9:11






            • 1




              Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:32












            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote










            We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
            now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109







            share|improve this answer















            We include 3 numbers 1,0,8 to 108, 108 can be written as 107+1
            now we have 2 remaining from the list of given numbers we can use as 107+(2*1)=109








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 11 at 9:03









            Shahriar Mahmud Sajid

            2,936526




            2,936526










            answered Sep 11 at 9:00









            jitendra

            411




            411











            • Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
              – Glorfindel
              Sep 11 at 9:11






            • 1




              Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:32
















            • Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
              – Glorfindel
              Sep 11 at 9:11






            • 1




              Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
              – tom
              Sep 11 at 12:32















            Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
            – Glorfindel
            Sep 11 at 9:11




            Welcome to Puzzling! I believe this solution is against the rules; you cannot 'decompose' partial results.
            – Glorfindel
            Sep 11 at 9:11




            1




            1




            Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:32




            Nice idea, plus one, but not the solution I'm afraid
            – tom
            Sep 11 at 12:32










            up vote
            4
            down vote













            This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:




            Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
            $$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$




            Explained:




            !2 == false, and !false == true. True is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.







            share|improve this answer


















            • 1




              Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:03














            up vote
            4
            down vote













            This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:




            Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
            $$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$




            Explained:




            !2 == false, and !false == true. True is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.







            share|improve this answer


















            • 1




              Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:03












            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote









            This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:




            Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
            $$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$




            Explained:




            !2 == false, and !false == true. True is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.







            share|improve this answer














            This is also just for fun, using $!$ in a different way than factorial:




            Uses $!$ as the binary NOT operator (like in C++ and JavaScript)
            $$108space+space!(!2) = 109$$




            Explained:




            !2 == false, and !false == true. True is numerically represented as $1$. Then you get $108 + 1$, which equals $109$.








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 12 at 2:45

























            answered Sep 12 at 0:31









            a stone arachnid

            1455




            1455







            • 1




              Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:03












            • 1




              Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:03







            1




            1




            Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
            – tom
            Sep 12 at 9:03




            Nice idea - a bit like the use of the ++ operator in another answer.... :-)
            – tom
            Sep 12 at 9:03










            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :




            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer




















            • ok, plus one for invention
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:02










            • Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
              – Sentinel
              Sep 12 at 20:33














            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :




            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer




















            • ok, plus one for invention
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:02










            • Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
              – Sentinel
              Sep 12 at 20:33












            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :




            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer












            Easy, just use a one sided self referencing equation, an ingenious mathematical artefact invented by me just now :




            enter image description here








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Sep 12 at 7:37









            Sentinel

            1,012112




            1,012112











            • ok, plus one for invention
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:02










            • Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
              – Sentinel
              Sep 12 at 20:33
















            • ok, plus one for invention
              – tom
              Sep 12 at 9:02










            • Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
              – Sentinel
              Sep 12 at 20:33















            ok, plus one for invention
            – tom
            Sep 12 at 9:02




            ok, plus one for invention
            – tom
            Sep 12 at 9:02












            Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
            – Sentinel
            Sep 12 at 20:33




            Yeah I was bored and maths is boring.
            – Sentinel
            Sep 12 at 20:33










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring




            $$dfrac218020=109$$







            share|improve this answer






















            • Digits are only allowed to be used once.
              – Jaap Scherphuis
              Sep 12 at 12:31










            • Agh, must have glossed over that one.
              – Ruben Dijkstra
              Sep 12 at 12:43














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring




            $$dfrac218020=109$$







            share|improve this answer






















            • Digits are only allowed to be used once.
              – Jaap Scherphuis
              Sep 12 at 12:31










            • Agh, must have glossed over that one.
              – Ruben Dijkstra
              Sep 12 at 12:43












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring




            $$dfrac218020=109$$







            share|improve this answer














            Even if it was solved, I couldn't help myself and came up with a boring




            $$dfrac218020=109$$








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 12 at 9:52









            Ian Fako

            572115




            572115










            answered Sep 12 at 9:45









            Ruben Dijkstra

            92




            92











            • Digits are only allowed to be used once.
              – Jaap Scherphuis
              Sep 12 at 12:31










            • Agh, must have glossed over that one.
              – Ruben Dijkstra
              Sep 12 at 12:43
















            • Digits are only allowed to be used once.
              – Jaap Scherphuis
              Sep 12 at 12:31










            • Agh, must have glossed over that one.
              – Ruben Dijkstra
              Sep 12 at 12:43















            Digits are only allowed to be used once.
            – Jaap Scherphuis
            Sep 12 at 12:31




            Digits are only allowed to be used once.
            – Jaap Scherphuis
            Sep 12 at 12:31












            Agh, must have glossed over that one.
            – Ruben Dijkstra
            Sep 12 at 12:43




            Agh, must have glossed over that one.
            – Ruben Dijkstra
            Sep 12 at 12:43










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:




            (2 * 82) - (8 * 2) - (1/2 * 8) + 10 = 109







            share|improve this answer






















            • $109 = 108+2^0$...
              – Surb
              yesterday















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:




            (2 * 82) - (8 * 2) - (1/2 * 8) + 10 = 109







            share|improve this answer






















            • $109 = 108+2^0$...
              – Surb
              yesterday













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:




            (2 * 82) - (8 * 2) - (1/2 * 8) + 10 = 109







            share|improve this answer














            Not correct, because it uses the same digits more than once, but you could get there like this:




            (2 * 82) - (8 * 2) - (1/2 * 8) + 10 = 109








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Sep 13 at 14:26

























            answered Sep 13 at 12:00









            Agi Hammerthief

            1004




            1004











            • $109 = 108+2^0$...
              – Surb
              yesterday

















            • $109 = 108+2^0$...
              – Surb
              yesterday
















            $109 = 108+2^0$...
            – Surb
            yesterday





            $109 = 108+2^0$...
            – Surb
            yesterday


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f71885%2fuse-2-0-1-and-8-to-make-109%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Bahrain

            Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay