Expert: Scott A Wilson - 10/6/2009

Question
QUESTION: "hello Mr. Wilson:
i was referred to you by Ms. Wallin.

I'm a bit fond of math formulas, so every time i see a bunch of numbers i try to find a simple formula,
hoping u can help with these sets:

(x+4517)=63598516622171
(x+4557)=36495208111338
(x+4576)=97984080144061
(x+4586)=47257090258318
(x+4646)=78961486137918
(x+4667)=02595531567663


PS. I guess (x) can not be separated as this may change value of formula from existing in all set's numbers....

tried hard but failed, where others meant to succeed

thx"

ANSWER: (x+4517)=63598516622171
(x+4557)=36495208111338
(x+4576)=97984080144061
(x+4586)=47257090258318
(x+4646)=78961486137918
(x+4667)=02595531567663

PS. I guess (x) can not be separated as this may change value of formula from existing in all set's numbers.... tried hard, but failed, where others meant to succeed

Putting in commas gives:
(x+4517)=63,598,516,622,171
(x+4557)=36,495,208,111,338
(x+4576)=97,984,080,144,061
(x+4586)=47,257,090,258,318
(x+4646)=78,961,486,137,918
(x+4667)=02,595,531,567,663
Is this what the numbers are meant to be?

The numbers on the right look like they are in the trillions, but why does that last start with  0?  I found the min that is added to x is 1517, and the max is 4667, so the difference is 150, which is kind of interesting.  However, the maximum number in the second column is 97,984,080,144,061 and the minimum is 2,595,531,567,663, with a difference of 95,388,548,576,398.  There’s nothing interesting about that.

Also, when arranged with the numbers 4517, 4557, 4576, 4586, 4646, and 4667 in order (low to high), the other numbers are not. They are 63,598,516,622,171, 36,495,208,111,338,
97,984,080,144,061, 47,257,090,258,318,78,961,486,137,918 and 2,595,531,567,663.

I found the average of 4517, 4557, 4576, 4586, 4646, and 4667 to be 4591.5
I found the average of the right hand side to be 54,481,985,473,578.2.

These may divide evenly, but with numbers that large, I'm not sure how much accuracy there is.

If the sums of both columns are taken, you get
17   62
20   78
21   54
22   61
23   61
23   63,
which doesn't make sense either.

I did note that if the second column of number is divided by the first, you get
63,598,516,622,171/4517   = 14,079,813,288.06
36,495,208,111,338/4557   =  8,008,603,930.51
97,984,080,144,061/4576   = 21,412,604,926.59
47,257,090,258,318/4586   = 10,304,642,446.21
78,961,486,137,918/4646   = 16,995,584,618.58
2,595,531,567,663/4667   =    556,145,611.24,
which also doesn't seem to follow anything.

I also so glanced at the 1st million places of pi and searched for the numbers,
but the first one I had to cut back to 63598 before it found it in several locations.

I had to cut back the 2nd number to 364952 before I found it in pi, and I only found that once.

I checked out the way the 4 digits numbers ended compared to the way the 14 digit numbers ended, but found nothing.  I compared the ending of the 4 digtits squared and the 4 digits cubed against the numbers given, but found nothing.

I noticed the numbers added to the x always end in 6 or 7.  I noticed the numbers on the right ended in 1, 8, or 3, with no correlation between them since the number that end in 1 corresponds to a 6 or 7 and the numbers that end in 8 corresponda to a 6 or a 7.

I noticed all of the 4 digit number are in the mid 4000's.  However, the big numbers vary from around 2-3 trillion to almost 100 trillion.  Hey, those numbers make me think of the national spending, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.  Besides, I think our spending is still in the billions, right?  Has it reached the trillions yet?

I'm not sure which way to go next.

I mean, I might look in the difference in digits, and see if that shows me anything relevant.
I might also look at the sum.  I could look at the trillions mod a certain number, but with that many digits, would the results be accurate?  Besides, the operation seems to be going the other way.  I could try and skip digits in the long numbers, or only include every 3rd one, or something like that.  I looked at the first 1000 digits of e, but of 4517, 4557, and 4576, I only found 4517 to be in them.

Is there any more clue on what to do?


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: hello again Mr. Wilson:
thanks for that much efforts;
however i had a thought that might be helpful should you try again to solve this issue;
i thought may be numbers on the left were sequence... like serial numbers or some like that, so based on this perhaps this will shed some light on any further efforts from you on solving this matter.

again thanks for interesting answer.
me

Answer
If that is the case, put them in order.
(x+4517)=63598516622171
(x+4646)=78961486137918
(x+4557)=36495208111338
(x+4667)=02595531567663
(x+4576)=97984080144061
(x+4586)=47257090258318

Can I assume the variable added to N(x+i) is x + something in the 4 thousands?

I'm not sure if this is right either.

From what I read, I thought maybe they were suppose to be
(x+4517)=6,3,5,9,8,5,1,6,6,2,2,1,7,1
(x+4646)=7,8,9,6,1,4,8,6,1,3,7,9,1,8
(x+4557)=3,6,4,9,5,2,0,8,1,1,1,3,3,8
(x+4667)=0,2,5,9,5,5,3,1,5,6,7,6,6,3
(x+4576)=9,7,9,8,4,0,8,0,1,4,4,0,6,1
(x+4586)=4,7,2,5,7,0,9,0,2,5,8,3,1,8
but that didn't look right, since that would mean each term in the x+4557 range
would be would be x+4557 thru x+4570, yet this does not look right,
sin the last three terms in that sequence should start off the (x+4576) series.

Maybe they are grouped in groups of two, like
(x+4517)=63,59,85,16,62,21,71
(x+4646)=78,96,14,86,13,79,18
(x+4557)=36,49,52,08,11,13,38
(x+4667)=02,59,55,31,56,76,63
(x+4576)=97,98,40,80,14,40,61
(x+4586)=47,25,70,90,25,83,18

Even if that is true, I've looked at differences and seen no way to get them.
Then again, maybe I'm off on a tangent.