pageok
pageok
pageok
[Puzzleblogger Kevan Choset, January 12, 2006 at 11:35am] Trackbacks
Number Sequence:

What's the next number in this sequence?

  • 13, 14, 6, 7, 12, 8, 16, 9, 13, 10, 15, 11, 12, 23, 6, 1, 2, ___

srg (mail):
Strictly speaking, the correct answer is "any number in the world."

For example, if the series were 1, 2, 3, then the next number might be 5, not 4,
because the series might begin 1,2,3,5,1,2,3,5 or 1,2,3,5,2,3,4,6, etc.
1.12.2006 12:39pm
Apodaca:
Beats me, but my initial speculation leads me to pose a separate puzzle:

What's the next number in this sequence?
4, 9, 12, 24, 24, 2, 23, ___

(If you bother to guess, please indicate that it's for this one and not Kevin's question.)
1.12.2006 12:46pm
Mark Buehner (mail) (www):
Working on it, interesting sequence. There are an inordinate amount of prime numbers.
1.12.2006 12:53pm
David Matthews (mail):
Kevan's sequence: 18.

Amazingly, thse are the numbers on my last three losing Powerball ticket purchases. What are the odds?
1.12.2006 12:58pm
John Armstrong (mail):
I'm almost positive it's not a math answer. It doesn't show up at all in the encyclopedia of integer sequences.
1.12.2006 1:08pm
Mark Buehner (mail) (www):
Got it, its 8. These are the jersey numbers of the Chicago Bears quarterbacks over the last 3 seasons.
1.12.2006 1:15pm
Cornellian (mail):
There's an "Encylopedia of Integer Sequences?" Wow.
1.12.2006 1:15pm
steveh2 (mail):
This has something to do with those numbers on "Lost", right?
1.12.2006 1:30pm
nombody:
Kevan's Sequence: Some statistic about one of the judiciary committee members.
1.12.2006 1:36pm
Michael Patrick Gibson (mail):
I'm guessing 13. The missing number is the 21st of the series. Divide all the numbers into sets of three, the first set being (13, 14, 6) for example. Now each set contains at least one meaningful number, the first set's meaningful number being 6. The next set has two meaningful numbers (7, 12, 8), the meaningful numbers being 7 and 8. A meaningful number is the simply the next number greater than the previous, starting with 6 in the first set. So the third set has one meaningful number, 9. And so on, until the last set. Both given numbers, 1 and 2 are meaningless. The missing number is the next in the meaningful series. That happens to be 13.
1.12.2006 1:57pm
Michael Patrick Gibson (mail):
I mean 18th of the series.
1.12.2006 2:00pm
Bleepless (mail):
If it's the Judiciary Committee, it probably is IQ.
1.12.2006 2:20pm
David Matthews (mail):
Perhaps it's the number of minutes of response time each of the questioners has allowed Judge Alito; but then "1, 2" would suggest that Biden had two consecutive half-hour blocks....
1.12.2006 2:27pm
MariaE81:
Well, then only pattern I have found is

13, x, x, x, 12, x, x, x, 13, x, x, x, 12, x, x, x

which leads me to think the next number is 13.
1.12.2006 2:46pm
Blar (mail) (www):
It could be the number of questions asked of Alito by each of his questioners. I'm not going to take the time to look that up.
1.12.2006 3:17pm
Borodino:
A random idea I don't have the time to track down: It could be a reference to the numbers of the amendments to the Constitution. (Organized by length, perhaps?)
1.12.2006 4:01pm
Iwazaru (www):
Since the highest number is 23, could the numbers represent letters?
1.12.2006 4:04pm
Andy Ratto (mail) (www):
Kevin: Every time you post a new puzzle, would it perhaps be possible if the very first comment is you posting the answer to the previous puzzle?

That way, interested readers could keep up with all the previous answers without having to bookmark the previous puzzles to check back later or scrolling back through the Conspiracy history to see if the previous puzzle had been answered.

Thanks for your consideration.
1.12.2006 4:33pm
Bruce Cleaver (mail):
MariaE81:

I was thinking along the same lines, but the last '12' has *four* numbers after it, not three....
1.12.2006 5:44pm
Lee Stillman (mail):
The answer is 16. note the last 4 in the sequence:

John VI
John Paul I
John Paul II
Benedict XVI
1.12.2006 6:50pm
Silicon Valley Jim:
Well, It was Paul VI, not John VI (it was John XXIII before him), but it looks to me as if you're right. Very impressive job!
1.12.2006 7:03pm
David Matthews (mail):
Nice work, Lee. Reading from the right, rather than the left, and knowing the answer, it's obvious....
1.13.2006 10:50am
Kevan Choset (mail):
Well done, Lee.

Andy: I will indeed begin posting each day's solution as a comment to the next day's post.
1.13.2006 9:41pm
Andy Ratto (mail) (www):
Kevan: thanks!

And sorry for misspelling your name...
1.13.2006 9:59pm