I haven't used this stuff since I learned it 15 years ago.
202153
ABOUT THE BINOMIAL THEOREM I AM TEEMING WITH A LOT OF NEWS\n\nWITH MANY CHEERFUL FACTS ABOUT THE SQUARE ON THE HYPOTENEUSE\n\n(W. S. Gilbert, I am The Very Model of a Modern Major General)\n\nI am assuming we are dealing with what we know is a PRIMITIVE Pythagorean triple ie one like (3,4,5) or (5,12,13) or (8,15,17) or (20,21,29) in which there is no common factor between the three sides, NOT one like (6,8,10) which is divisible by 2.\n\nThere are tables published of the smallest triples, in ascending order of hypooteneuse, so you may be able to look it up and not need to calculate it. \n\nhttp://www.math.rutgers.edu/~erowland/tripleslist-long.html\n\nHowever, two points.  \n\nNot every integer can be a hypoteneuse. There are gaps in the table eg after (3,4,5) the next smallesr hypoteneuse is 13 (in (5, 12, 13). There are no primitive triples with a hypoteneuse of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12. And therefore if you were given a hypoteneuse of 12, there are no integer solutions to it.\n\nSecondly, there are cases where a number is hypoteneuse to more than one triple. 65 is the lowest such number and 85 is the next.\n\n(16, 63, 65) and (33, 56, 65)\n(13, 84, 85) and (36, 77, 85)\n\nThese are known as siblings. Both give correct solutions and you can't say one is right and the other is wrong. Here are a couple of special cases, with more than two solutions:\n\n(47, 1104, 1105)\n(744, 817, 1105)\n(576, 943, 1105) \n(264, 1073, 1105)\n\nThere are EIGHT siblings with a hypoteneuse of 32045, SIXTEEN siblings with a hypoteneuse of 1185665, THIRTY-TWO siblings with a hypoteneuse of 48612265, AND SIXTY FOUR siblings with a hypoteneuse of 2576450045.\n\nHere are rthe eight siblings with a hypoteneuse of 32045:\n\n(2277, 31964, 32045) \n(8283, 30956, 32045)\n(17253, 27004, 32045) \n(21093, 24124, 32045)\n(22244, 23067, 32045)\n(15916, 27813, 32045)\n(6764, 31323 , 32045)\n(716, 32037, 32045)\n\nLacking access to tables, for small numbers, you may be able to work it out, by trial and error, using the following properties\n\n(a) the hypoteneuse must be the biggest side and must be an odd number (to be a primitive triple)\n\n(b) one of the legs will be an odd number and the other an even number\n\n(c) As a result, the difference between the two small sides will always be an odd number. In fact it is either a prime number (eg 1, 7 and 17 feature, but 11, 13 and 19 do not) or a power of a prime number (49 is the lowest such).\n\n(d) the sum of the two legs must be bigger than the hypoteneuse\n\n(e) one and only one of the legs must be divisible by 3\n\n(f)  one and only one of the legs must be divisible by 4\n\n(g)  one and only one side (which might be the hypoteneuse) must be divisible by 5\n\n(h) follows from (e) (f) and (g)\n\n(h) the product of the three sides is always divisible by 60\n\nThus if you knew the hypoteneuse and could see it was not divisible by 5, then it follows the legs must, between them, be divisible BY 3 4 AND 5\n\nSo if you knew the hypoteneuse is 61, it seems obvious to try one of the legs as 60 and see if that works (it does, (11, 60, 61) is a triple. \n\nIn fact you can work out the third member is 11 by adding 60 and 61 to see if it is a perfect square (it is 121) and taking the square root of it, if so. (another property of triples whose two largest sides differ by 1).\n\nGiven that 17 is a hypoteneuse and knowing one of the other sides must be 3 x 4 or 3 x 5 (4 x 5 would be larger than 17) you have a choice of (12, x, 17) where x = 5 or 15 (has to be odd as 12 is even) or (y, 15, 17) where y is 4, 8, 12 or 16)\n\nIt turns out to be (8, 15, 17)\n\nAgain, knowing a property of all triples where the hypoteneuse and the larger leg differ by 2, there is a shortcut, that leads to 8 ... take the average of the two longer sides, multiply by 4 and take the square root. (thus 16 => 64 => 8)\n\nThis holds true for \n(12, 35, 37)\n(16, 63, 65)\n(20, 99, 101) etc\n\nSo it is possible to make intelligent guesses at the
33253
so long that i tend to forget it
16379
No, there was one years ago, but not anymore...K
163891
Thank for the info, I not heard that before, I dont have AE
347487
sake, never used anymore, except by my grandma
322519
my grandmother who raised me (i'm 34 and she would have been 102) used that stuff. i haven't heard of it since the 70's. OMG i can't believe anyone else used it but her.\nand she was just like your grandmother, expiration dates meant nothing to her!
101137
not long i don't think i learn it in a few weeks.
341874
get an old test and study that
101703
ha! ha! ha! I never heard this one!Do you mind if I start using it?
402882
Nope I have never tried it before.
437895
I used to know, but I can't remember anymore.
674174
damn..all these years you were not in the real world?
320283
Yeah you need to see what they have today, that technology is so fifteen years ago.  You don't find out about technology until its ancient history.
309107
it's still used.\ni guess it's universal. old language and all
498420
Yes but i forgot how it works.
232511
I remember it well, and had been thinking about it recently actually - you used to be able to get samples and literature about the company products and enter competitions.  I know we used to love it. I also think it made us smarter! I left Junior School in 1966 and they didn't give it to us in Grammar School, so the last time I got one was 40 years ago!\n\nI'm suprised Cadbury's and Kellogg's have no record of it;  I remember them being in it year after year.  \n\nRose:)
260893
I have not taken the class.