Why isn't 568
“You would not be certain that
is not 568.” - Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast And Slow
Thanks to Alice for pointing out that yes, she bloody well would.
Most people under 50 in the UK would reach for a calculator, or possibly a pen and paper to work out
The answer, as it happens, is 408 - but that’s not the point of this article; instead, it’s about how you know it’s not 568.
1. Estimation
The first, most obvious thing: 17 is a bit less than 20. 24 is a similar amount more than 20. That means
2. Factorisation rules
I recently saw a ‘counter-example’ to Fermat’s Last Theorem, that claimed
You can do a similar trick with Kahneman’s example: 24 is a multiple of 3, so
3. The Last Digit Test
This example actually passes the Last Digit test, but it’s a good one to use if you’re trying to narrow down answers: if you multiply the last digits together, you get
4. Seventeens
Like I say, you don’t chant your 17-times table, so - unless you’re the Mathematical Ninja - you probably don’t know that
Kahneman is probably right, 99% of the time, that his readers won’t immediately spot that
Footnotes:
1. Note: this trick only works for multiples of 3 and 9.
2. If you like, it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.
3. If you play darts, you might know that treble-17 is 51, though.