What is the number that when divided by 2, 3, 5, and 6 leaves aremainder of 1?

?????????

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
wrote:

?????????

There is no "the" number, as there are an infinite number of
solutions. The smallest number is trivially determined by finding the
least common multiple of the inputs and adding one to it.

The problem is perhaps a little prettier (although still just as
trivial) if you include 4 in the input sequence.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:37:36 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
wrote:

?????????

There is no "the" number, as there are an infinite number of
solutions. The smallest number is trivially determined by finding the
least common multiple of the inputs and adding one to it.

The problem is perhaps a little prettier (although still just as
trivial) if you include 4 in the input sequence.

Goggle the effin question and you have the answer.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:37:36 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The problem is perhaps a little prettier (although still just as
trivial) if you include 4 in the input sequence.

Problem indeed !, why not include 7 which leaves no remainder but then again google the effin question.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 4:02:01 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Problem indeed !, why not include 7 which leaves no remainder but then again google the effin question.

Better yet, Google the "Chinese remainder theorem".

Of course, a trivial answer is "1".

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 3:02:00 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

John Savard

Many here have minimal integrity and honor but have enough sense to steer clear of certain topics as they know the intellectual torture of recognizing
Newton's idiosyncratic expression of the the Equation of Time while rejecting it for the sake of the early 20th century ideology.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton

The fact that you know more than the mathematical community is of no account to me however, even for an unmoderated forum where mobbing is a fact of life, your graffiti is excessive.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
?????????

No one coughed up the number and it's Fart of July, here it is,
simple and clear:

181

On 05/07/2017 08:36, StarDust wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
?????????

No one coughed up the number and it's Fart of July, here it is,
simple and clear:

181

ITYM 1 as the lowest positive solution

otherwise 30N+1 with integer N = 0

It is obvious by construction that such numbers obey all constraints.

There is nothing special about 181 as a "solution" it is certainly not
the lowest non trivial solution to the problem nor is it unique.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 15:37:34 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT), StarDust

wrote:


?????????


There is no "the" number, as there are an infinite number of
solutions. The smallest number is trivially determined by finding
the
least common multiple of the inputs and adding one to it.

No, the smallest number is 1. Then all the quotients will be 0 and
the remainder will be 1.


The problem is perhaps a little prettier (although still just as
trivial) if you include 4 in the input sequence.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 00:36:31 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
?????????


No one coughed up the number and it's Fart of July, here it is,
simple and clear:

181

Another answer is 1 - all the quotients will then be 0 and the
remainder will be 1.