Fewest number of steps to reach 200 using special calculator












7












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$












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










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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$












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










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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 hours ago














7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


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










asked 3 hours ago









jeremy radcliffjeremy radcliff

2,15612240




2,15612240












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










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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 hours ago


















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










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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 hours ago
















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




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












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




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












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




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




1




1




$begingroup$
@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 hours 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 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

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:




  • 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











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    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 hours 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 hours ago



















    1












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$





















      1












      $begingroup$

      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











      $endgroup$













        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-number-of-steps-to-reach-200-using-special-calculator%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









        10












        $begingroup$

        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:




        • 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











        $endgroup$


















          10












          $begingroup$

          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:




          • 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











          $endgroup$
















            10












            10








            10





            $begingroup$

            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:




            • 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:




            • 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 1 hour ago

























            answered 2 hours ago









            TonyKTonyK

            43.2k356135




            43.2k356135























                2












                $begingroup$

                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 hours 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 hours ago
















                2












                $begingroup$

                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 hours 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 hours ago














                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                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 hours ago









                Yves DaoustYves Daoust

                130k676229




                130k676229












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


















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
















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






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











                1












                $begingroup$

                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









                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  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









                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    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 hours ago









                    giannispapavgiannispapav

                    1,806325




                    1,806325























                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        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











                        $endgroup$


















                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          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











                          $endgroup$
















                            1












                            1








                            1





                            $begingroup$

                            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 1 hour ago

























                            answered 2 hours ago









                            Barry CipraBarry Cipra

                            60.2k654126




                            60.2k654126






























                                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-number-of-steps-to-reach-200-using-special-calculator%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

                                How to label and detect the document text images

                                Vallis Paradisi

                                Tabula Rosettana