Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, as stated: it ends in 3, so the cube root must be a multiple of 3.

The "cube root" part contains the implicit information that we have a product ending in 3, of three identical factors.

I guess the missing assumption is that given the context of solving the cube root in ones head, it would more likely be a trick that only works with integers, and as such the correct answer might be expected to be one.




> Yes, as stated: it ends in 3, so the cube root must be a multiple of 3.

I don't get it. 7 cubed is 343. The article explains better what numbers might have cubes ending in 3.


Yes, the article is great (now I've read it).

37*3 also ends in 3 but is not divisible by 3. Thus, were the range not capped at 30 it may have been illegitimately discarded by the criteria.

I think the 3 combined with the 5 digits and 20-30 range, made my guess a bit lucky. It's also contrived for that cube, so not useful for others, other than perhaps as a direction to go in (and likely arrive at the article).


The difference is that 343 is not a multiple of 3, which excludes its cube root from being a multiple of 3.


Right. The correct argument is that 19683 is a *multiple* of 3, because its digit sum 27 is a multiple of 3. So if it's a perfect cube, then the cube root must be a multiple of 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34652053 Also, if it's a perfect cube, since it ends in 3, the cube root must end in 7 (cubing integers is 1:1 on the units digit, and 7->3). So it must be 27, 57, 87, ...

Since it's too small for the cube root to be 57, 27 is the answer.


No, he meant that the cube root must be a multiple of 3. 27 is a multiple of 3.


But 7 isn't a multiple of 3.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: