Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Since the question stated "number" as opposed to "numbers", this implies that only one number could not belong in this set of numbers. My guess would be 111, since all other numbers in the sequence are either even (111 does not belong) or prime (111 does not belong).

Since the question stated "number" as opposed to "numbers", this implies that only one number could not belong in this set of numbers. My guess would be 111, since all other numbers in the sequence are either even (111 does not belong) or prime (111 does not belong).

maybe i don't understand what you wrote but aren't only the 2's 4's & 6's even and none of them are prime?

__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901

Since the question stated "number" as opposed to "numbers", this implies that only one number could not belong in this set of numbers. My guess would be 111, since all other numbers in the sequence are either even (111 does not belong) or prime (111 does not belong).

Cube - You may be on to something, but might have misstated. Maybe 111 is Prime and the others not?

Cube - You may be on to something, but might have misstated. Maybe 111 is Prime and the others not?

Even numbers are always not Prime

how is it that you people are better at finance than me? 111 is not a prime number. ie 37 x 3 = 111 not just 1 x 111 = 111

__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901

I may be full of it, but my rationale was 111 plus 222 equals 333, 222 plus 333 equals 555, 555 plus 111 equals 666. And 444 doesn't fit.

interesting martha. the golden ratio goes 1 plus 2 is 3. 3 plus 2 is 5. (i was working on a linear 5 plus 3 is 8 ) but then you went out of the box to close the circle back from 5 to 1 which gives 6. it's a curious twist, so far my money's on martha.

__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901

Very Good! - I didn't check, but you are correct 111 is not a prime number. - I don't have a Prime Number Calculator in my Brain!

So, that's not it!

sorry, but that was an old school trick. any number that can be added to three (or a multiple of three) can be divided by three.

__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901

interesting martha. the golden ratio goes 1 plus 2 is 3. 3 plus 2 is 5. (i was working on a linear 5 plus 3 is 8 ) but then you went out of the box to close the circle back from 5 to 1 which gives 6. it's a curious twist, so far my money's on martha.

I wonder about me circling back around again to the one, so that is why I said I might be full of it.

__________________ .

No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

no martha. even if it is full of it i think we can still argue the point and win in court.

the difference is that the key is to find a sequence. what martha sees is a sequence which starts off linearly , the original 111 is understood so it goes 111 plus 111 is 222. 111 plus 222 is 333. 333 plus 222 is 555. so we have the 1,2,3 & 5 of the sequence. it's sort of a lather, rinse, repeat of the golden ratio. only to get back to lathering, you have your 555 and you go back to 111 which gives you 666. and all that gets the 444 out of your hair.

__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901

I decided I am wrong. It was the first thought that came to mind. But really, under my theory the 333 should have been added to the 555, so it didn't work.

I like wab's idea though.

__________________ .

No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Very Good! - I didn't check, but you are correct 111 is not a prime number. - I don't have a Prime Number Calculator in my Brain!

So, that's not it!

If the digits add up to 3 or 6 or 9, the number is a multiple of three.
If the digits add up to 9, the number is a multiple of 9.
Any number ending in 5 is a multiple of 5.
(integers)

34577091 => 36 => 9 - divisible by 9.

__________________ "Knowin' no one nowhere's gonna miss us when we're gone..."

it is an ever widening looping or spiral golden ratio. think nautilus.

__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901