Fewest steps to reach $200$ from $1$ using only $+1$ and $×2$choosing $5$ non consecutive books from a shelve of $12$A calculator is broken so that the only keys that still work are the basic trigonometric and inverse trigonometric functionsOptimization of English Braille: Using the fewest dotsWhen can we quit a game of War?Number of ways to get from a point to another one in the planeOld childhood gameReaching a destination with random steps: is the time $2^x - 1$?integrating a line with a changing slopeA set of integersDoubt regarding William Feller's combinatorics problem of indistinguishable objects

How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?

Consistent Linux device enumeration

Sigmoid with a slope but no asymptotes?

Extracting patterns from a text

How do I tell my boss that I'm quitting in 15 days (a colleague left this week)

Possible Eco thriller, man invents a device to remove rain from glass

Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?

Magento Commands Not working

Why does a 97 / 92 key piano exist by Bösendorfer?

SSH to droplet with non root user

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

How would a solely written language work mechanically

How to write Quadratic equation with negative coefficient

Friend wants my recommendation but I don't want to give it to him

Did I make a mistake by ccing email to boss to others?

Confusion over Hunter with Crossbow Expert and Giant Killer

What is this high flying aircraft over Pennsylvania?

What happens if I try to grapple mirror image?

Why didn't Voldemort know what Grindelwald looked like?

Typing CO_2 easily

Should I warn a new PhD Student?

Distinction between 地平線 【ちへいせん】 and 水平線 【すいへいせん】

Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?

How to get directions in deep space?



Fewest steps to reach $200$ from $1$ using only $+1$ and $×2$


choosing $5$ non consecutive books from a shelve of $12$A calculator is broken so that the only keys that still work are the basic trigonometric and inverse trigonometric functionsOptimization of English Braille: Using the fewest dotsWhen can we quit a game of War?Number of ways to get from a point to another one in the planeOld childhood gameReaching a destination with random steps: is the time $2^x - 1$?integrating a line with a changing slopeA set of integersDoubt regarding William Feller's combinatorics problem of indistinguishable objects













20












$begingroup$


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



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



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



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



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










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




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






  • 1




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










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






  • 2




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















20












$begingroup$


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



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



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



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



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










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




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






  • 1




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










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






  • 2




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













20












20








20


4



$begingroup$


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



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



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



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



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










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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



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



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



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



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







combinatorics algebra-precalculus contest-math






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









user21820

39.7k543157




39.7k543157










asked 2 days ago









jeremy radcliffjeremy radcliff

2,22312241




2,22312241







  • 1




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






  • 1




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










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






  • 2




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












  • 1




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






  • 1




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










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






  • 2




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







1




1




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




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




1




1




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




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












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




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




2




2




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




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










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















45












$begingroup$

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




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

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

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

Therefore, with a single key press:



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

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

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






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
    $endgroup$
    – Jared Goguen
    2 days ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
    $endgroup$
    – Kay K.
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago


















10












$begingroup$

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



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






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    2 days ago


















4












$begingroup$

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



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






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












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











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


















2












$begingroup$

I'll make a try



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



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






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151946%2ffewest-steps-to-reach-200-from-1-using-only-1-and-%25c3%25972%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    45












    $begingroup$

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




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

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

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

    Therefore, with a single key press:



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

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

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






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      2 days ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      2 days ago











    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      2 days ago















    45












    $begingroup$

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




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

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

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

    Therefore, with a single key press:



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

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

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






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      2 days ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      2 days ago











    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      2 days ago













    45












    45








    45





    $begingroup$

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




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

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

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

    Therefore, with a single key press:



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

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

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






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



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




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

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

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

    Therefore, with a single key press:



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

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

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







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    TonyKTonyK

    43.6k358136




    43.6k358136











    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      2 days ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      2 days ago











    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
      $endgroup$
      – Jared Goguen
      2 days ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
      $endgroup$
      – Kay K.
      2 days ago











    • $begingroup$
      @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
      $endgroup$
      – TonyK
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
    $endgroup$
    – Jared Goguen
    2 days ago





    $begingroup$
    Beautiful, this allows you to determine the optimal solution and path for an arbitrary number from it's binary representation.
    $endgroup$
    – Jared Goguen
    2 days ago





    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
    $endgroup$
    – Kay K.
    2 days ago





    $begingroup$
    There actually exist two ways of getting $200$ using nine steps. $$1+1+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200\ 1times2+1times2times2times2+1times2times2times2=200$$
    $endgroup$
    – Kay K.
    2 days ago













    $begingroup$
    @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @KayK.: Yes, but only because there are two ways of getting to $2$. The rest is uniquely determined, I think.
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    2 days ago











    10












    $begingroup$

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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      2 days ago















    10












    $begingroup$

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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      2 days ago













    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



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



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







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    Barry CipraBarry Cipra

    60.3k654127




    60.3k654127











    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
      $endgroup$
      – jacob1729
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    This is nice as it formalizes the OPs intuition, whereas the binary representation answer (which is super slick) might feel a little out of the blue.
    $endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    2 days ago











    4












    $begingroup$

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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












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











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















    4












    $begingroup$

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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












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











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













    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



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



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







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Yves DaoustYves Daoust

    131k676229




    131k676229











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











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
















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











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















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





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













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




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











    2












    $begingroup$

    I'll make a try



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



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






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      2












      $begingroup$

      I'll make a try



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



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






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        I'll make a try



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



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






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        I'll make a try



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



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







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        giannispapavgiannispapav

        1,824325




        1,824325



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


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

            But avoid


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

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

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


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




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151946%2ffewest-steps-to-reach-200-from-1-using-only-1-and-%25c3%25972%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

            Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

            Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?