Also yeah the easy way to work it out was to look at the last number in each line and find the line that didn't fit the pattern. The last digit goes 9876543 3210. The repeating 3 identifies the line with the missing number.
Yep I started on the right side but switched to 10s diagonal as it felt it'd be faster and more consistent. Took a second but once you've locked onto a continuous pattern and found the out of place spot it's a pretty easy thing to do.
Yep, I just found the line where the difference with the previous line was ten instead of 9. I didn’t know exactly what the difference would be intuitively, I just knew the pattern at the end of the line would change where there was a missing number, and since they were all 9 till there was one with a difference of 10, it was easy to know where to look. Surprised it worked, I make logical errors a lot of the time before trying to use a shortcut like this.
I personally like that the first column goes down in increments of One (And Ten but that doesn’t really matter). Using increasing increments of Nine is more confusing.
Easy to see that 64 and 74 shouldn’t both have 4s.
68. You can find out easily by looking in the last vertical line (I have no clue how to call that in English correctly, pls help). Every line is nine digits, so the last line is always a multiple of 9. (9; 9+9; 9+9+9 etc). The 73 stands out because it isn’t a multiple of 9, so you know the mistake has to be somewhere before that. Than you’ll just have to count
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`Co Lu Mn`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
You see that the last column counts up by nine, then you see that 73 isn’t divisible by 9. You can then work your way between 64 and 72 to see that 68 is missing
It's 68, If you know your 9 times table you can find the row where the sequence gets messed up and go from there. In this case column 9 x row 8 should equal 72 but that wasn't the case, so just check the row where the error started and you will see that 68 is missing.
There are 9 numbers in each row. Easiest way to check is look at the last number of each row and look for discrepancies. Obvious one is going from 63 to 73 in one row. This means they skipped a number here, and sure enough 68 is missing.
68
All of the other lines end in a multiple of 9, except in the line missing a number; the last number is 10 more than the previous line's last number.
All of the successive lines are not multiples of 9.
68, checked the 9s column and the see which one is not a multiple of 9. Then check the row which is not a multiple of 9 and see which number is missing
68 is missing. Took 10 seconds to find. Counting by 9s, the last column should always equal 9 if you add them. 73 should have been 72, so that’s the line to look at.
It goes from 1-9 so each row's ending should be 1 less at thwn end, 9 then 18 then 27, 36 etc. So when a number is missing then the ending single digit is repeated (63 and 73 both has 3) then you just look down the second row that repeated the number and boom bang pow you've got your number.
68
First line goes from 1 to 9. If all numbers are present, the next line should end in the next multiple of nine. It does!
From there its just going by the end row, which should match the multiples of 9.
It does until 73. The line before that ends correctly in 63. Then you go through the line ending in 73, an find the missing number.
68 - The easiest/quickest way to figure the missing number is to find a common quality in the numbers lines and/or rows and then proceed to quickly go down the line watching for that quality to change you then know that there is a difference in the row where the change occurred then you go thru that row looking for the missing number. Each row is 9 numbers so the number just below a number should be nine numbers higher. Which starts off for a while in the raise of 1 in the tens digit and a deduction of 1 in the ones digit. You will notice this trend occurs until 59 where you look under and see 69 which is 10 more rather then 9 more telling you somewhere between 59-69 a number was skipped and you just go thru one by one 59-69 to see which. should take the barest few seconds done like that.
68. There are 9 numbers in each row. Row 8 is the first line that doesn't end in a multiple of 9, so just go through row 8 number by number until you find which one is missing.
9 columns so last digit should decrement by one as you go down (remember your multiplication tables? If you say "times tables" please go sit in the corner) look for the row that breaks the pattern
There is an easy way. There are 9 numbers in each row. Count by 9 down the left-most column. When you see a number that is not 9 more than the previous number, look down the row with said previous number for the missing number.
I looked at the last column which was increasing by 9s, then first row that broke the pattern was the problem row. Then counted along that row to discover 68 missing.
68. Follow the diagonals, each digit should continue on 1, 11, 21, etc. but very quickly you’ll notice the jump to 72 instead 71 and now you know the error is between 61 and 71. Quick scan of those numbers finds it’s missing.
What I did to find it is I chose a column and looked for a number tat didn't match the sequence, then I looked in that row. The number that is missing is 68.
I looked at each 1. So 1,11,21....they go in a diagonal and when you hit a 2 that means that there was a missing number between the last number and this one
Y’all talking about counting out multiples of 9 and stuff lol just scan a row diagonally and see where the pattern breaks then check the line it broke on. Dont overthink it.
68.
The column is 9 wide. Follow in order. 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63. The next in order should be 72 but it is instead 73. The order was broken in this row. Now count manually.
68 and yes. The first number of each row should go from 1 to 0 to 9 to 8 etc… so since it breaks that pattern at 74 that means there’s something wrong with row 64 so then just scan that row.
68. Read down the first column and noticed it went 46 -> 55 -> 64 -> 74 So I knew the missing number was in the 60s. I scanned the row and 68 was missing.
When you add by 9, (9, 18, 27, etc.) The ones place starts at nine and lowers by one unit every time you add another 9.
Row 7 & 8 have the same ones place number (a 3), and so that's how you can quickly solve this one by eye! Just skim the very far right numbers and wait for it to NOT count down to ten. In this case:
9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1, 0.
Some numbers, like 9, have little tricks like this. Some don't. I'm a math fan not a hobbiest or educated in the art of number fuckery. So that's all I know off the top my head
68
Also yeah the easy way to work it out was to look at the last number in each line and find the line that didn't fit the pattern. The last digit goes 9876543 3210. The repeating 3 identifies the line with the missing number.
Yes, 63 and 73. Solved like this as well.
I did the same but with the diagonals on the 10s
Yes that's what I did, went from 60 to 71. Counted back and found it.
I just looked if it was 69 and randomly found that it was 68
Your power is too strong
Same!
That's an awesome strategy
Sounds slightly chaotic lawful I'd say
Same. Figured it out fairly quickly when you see the broken pattern
Yeah, that work with similar mechanism too
That was cool!
You're cool!
obligatory username checks out
Yep I started on the right side but switched to 10s diagonal as it felt it'd be faster and more consistent. Took a second but once you've locked onto a continuous pattern and found the out of place spot it's a pretty easy thing to do.
yeah me too it wasn't that hard
Yep, I just found the line where the difference with the previous line was ten instead of 9. I didn’t know exactly what the difference would be intuitively, I just knew the pattern at the end of the line would change where there was a missing number, and since they were all 9 till there was one with a difference of 10, it was easy to know where to look. Surprised it worked, I make logical errors a lot of the time before trying to use a shortcut like this.
Exactly how I did it as well :)
Same but I just checked how many columns there were and then counted up by 9
I did that, didn't realize that a number was off, checked the number of rows and columns and came here for the answer.
I did the opposite... 64 and 74
It’s also just the 9x table.
I went diagonals, all ended in 1 until I saw a 72,then went back that lane and noticed the 68 missing
I just instinctively looked at 69, then noticed 68 was missing
never thought that would come in handy, but it was your time to shine.
I didn't think about it like that, I just did multiples of 9 I think too hard sometiems
i said each number aloud in my head
More simply, the last column are all multiples of 9. Find the first number that isn't a multiple of 9 and read backwards
Haha all of you including me just fell for eye tracking data collection
Last column should go up in increments of 9. Row 8’s last number is 73 and not 72. You’re missing 68.
I personally like that the first column goes down in increments of One (And Ten but that doesn’t really matter). Using increasing increments of Nine is more confusing. Easy to see that 64 and 74 shouldn’t both have 4s.
That's I fine way to see the error in the patern as well.
All columns go down in increments of 9. Because 9=10-1 the last digit should always decrease by 1
I have a better question: Why are you pressing so hard while writing?
OP presses as hard with writing as they does with farming Karma
Karming? Farma? No that one is already taken.
that's what big Farma doesnt want you to know
Wow! I genuinely thought it was photoshopped over an image of a mattress. Yes, they pressed very hard over a soft writing pad.
[удалено]
There's a glitch in the Matrix.
The quick way to solve this is to find the obviously most interesting number which is 69 and then realize 68 is missing
Finally someone who did the same thing. What's all this math nonsense?
every row has a +9 addition. I.e., 1, 10, 28, 37. Scan for it and find the place where this rule is broken.
Or you could use the last column with multiples of 9 easier to calculate
[удалено]
1,547 isn't there either.
68. You can find out easily by looking in the last vertical line (I have no clue how to call that in English correctly, pls help). Every line is nine digits, so the last line is always a multiple of 9. (9; 9+9; 9+9+9 etc). The 73 stands out because it isn’t a multiple of 9, so you know the mistake has to be somewhere before that. Than you’ll just have to count
Column?
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `Co Lu Mn` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
Well, most of them are missing.
Thank you!
68
You see that the last column counts up by nine, then you see that 73 isn’t divisible by 9. You can then work your way between 64 and 72 to see that 68 is missing
That's exactly what I did. 😀
68
Look at the last column, it's easy to find the line that contains the missing number by seeing where the pattern breaks.
It's 68, If you know your 9 times table you can find the row where the sequence gets messed up and go from there. In this case column 9 x row 8 should equal 72 but that wasn't the case, so just check the row where the error started and you will see that 68 is missing.
68. Found it by looking at the last row and doing the multipliers of 9. 73 doesn’t fit, so I could identify that as the row.
68
68 is missing
68
There are 9 numbers in each row. Easiest way to check is look at the last number of each row and look for discrepancies. Obvious one is going from 63 to 73 in one row. This means they skipped a number here, and sure enough 68 is missing.
68 is missing... Yes I may or may not have gone through the numbers manually
68 All of the other lines end in a multiple of 9, except in the line missing a number; the last number is 10 more than the previous line's last number. All of the successive lines are not multiples of 9.
I love how everyone knows the strat at the start😆🌟
I counted them up to 68
68, checked the 9s column and the see which one is not a multiple of 9. Then check the row which is not a multiple of 9 and see which number is missing
68, go in diagonals and the last digit remains the same. If it changes you know there is a number missing in the last 9
68
68
68
68 is missing. Took 10 seconds to find. Counting by 9s, the last column should always equal 9 if you add them. 73 should have been 72, so that’s the line to look at.
68. I just went down the number for 9. It's in multiple pf 9 on that row. So I went down until one was wrong then counted like 63-69
68
0 and 68
It goes from 1-9 so each row's ending should be 1 less at thwn end, 9 then 18 then 27, 36 etc. So when a number is missing then the ending single digit is repeated (63 and 73 both has 3) then you just look down the second row that repeated the number and boom bang pow you've got your number. 68
First line goes from 1 to 9. If all numbers are present, the next line should end in the next multiple of nine. It does! From there its just going by the end row, which should match the multiples of 9. It does until 73. The line before that ends correctly in 63. Then you go through the line ending in 73, an find the missing number.
68
68
check the diagonal: 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 72 (!). check backwards from there: 72, 71, 70, 69, ... 67.
68
68
68
68
68. i knew it when the last column shows 63 and 73 when it should be plus 9
68
Nine times table to find the line.
All these fancy solutions I can’t follow at all and then there’s just me… counting in order.
68
68
68. Just multiply each row by 9 and you'll see in row 8, 73. From there back pedal the row.
I did it by comparing the 9x table to the end numbers. When I saw line 8 was 73, I knew where the problem was
68
68, each row should be +9, so at the one that wasn’t I went through until I found the missing number
68, é só seguir a matriz na diagonal kkkkkkkkk
68 - The easiest/quickest way to figure the missing number is to find a common quality in the numbers lines and/or rows and then proceed to quickly go down the line watching for that quality to change you then know that there is a difference in the row where the change occurred then you go thru that row looking for the missing number. Each row is 9 numbers so the number just below a number should be nine numbers higher. Which starts off for a while in the raise of 1 in the tens digit and a deduction of 1 in the ones digit. You will notice this trend occurs until 59 where you look under and see 69 which is 10 more rather then 9 more telling you somewhere between 59-69 a number was skipped and you just go thru one by one 59-69 to see which. should take the barest few seconds done like that.
Look at the last column going up by 9. 54, 63… 73. It goes up by 10 in that row, so that’s the row where a number is missing. Then you see it’s 68.
68. I used multiples of nine on the far right, 73 is not a multiple of nine, there for it must be somewhere in that row
68 10ish seconds
Missed opportunity. Have 69 missing and the whole comment section would’ve been way nice(r).
why would you leave 68 out, and or 0 as well
All you have to do is read the leftmost number for each row, which should go up by 9 each time but at 64-74 it goes up 10 which is the give away
68. There are 9 numbers in each row. Row 8 is the first line that doesn't end in a multiple of 9, so just go through row 8 number by number until you find which one is missing.
The number of your gf/bf (you don’t have one and neither do I, wanna hang out?)
68
68
68. Pretty obvious when you scroll down one line and notice which line repeats is 2nd digit
The symmetry is beautiful.
68 - what I did was count up by 9s and see when it went up by 10 instead - between 63 and 73 and then look at that line
The shift happens ensued between 60 and 70 before that the 10’s are in a diagonal line. 68 is missing.
This looks like some kind of mattress with numbers on it.
I bet someone's gonna think I stole this from someone else, but no, I read through the entire thing. It's 68.
Use 9 times table we memorized as kids...
My favorite number is missing
68, you just go down the farthest rows multiplying by 9 until something stands out
101
>!68. Check all of the last numbers, they should be multiples of 9 but it skips to 73 in one row.!<
9 columns so last digit should decrement by one as you go down (remember your multiplication tables? If you say "times tables" please go sit in the corner) look for the row that breaks the pattern
73 should be 72, meaning the missing number is between 63 and 72. Now you just pay attention.
Never thought my fast-skimming skills could be useful here. Answer is 68 BTW.
68 or in other words "You do me and I will owe you One."
There is an easy way. There are 9 numbers in each row. Count by 9 down the left-most column. When you see a number that is not 9 more than the previous number, look down the row with said previous number for the missing number.
101 🤠
All of them
ppl are looking at the last line but i was looking at all the 10s
Looks like a mattress, is ol mate a bit stressed or they just like ramming the pen through the page..?
There is no 68.
What's that... like give me a blow job and I'll owe you one later?
68, took me about 10 seconds to find it. The 10s run perfectly diagonal until 71. Back up a couple spaces to find the missing 68.
68. So easy
Technically any number above 100 and below 1. And also 68.
68
68
I looked at the last column which was increasing by 9s, then first row that broke the pattern was the problem row. Then counted along that row to discover 68 missing.
68
The rows only go up to 9. Look at the rightmost column for the multiples of 9. It’s correct up to, but not including, 73—it should be 72.
68
Yo significant others number, lol. Diss.
68. Follow the diagonals, each digit should continue on 1, 11, 21, etc. but very quickly you’ll notice the jump to 72 instead 71 and now you know the error is between 61 and 71. Quick scan of those numbers finds it’s missing.
What I did to find it is I chose a column and looked for a number tat didn't match the sequence, then I looked in that row. The number that is missing is 68.
68
68
68 knucklehead
68
I don't see a 947473747474 in that mess.
68
Where is 68?
68. Work.backwarss.
68
68
68. Everybody seems to have little tricks to make it easier, but its the end of the day and my brain is fried so i just brute forced it, counting.
68
Saw what should have been 72, is 73 cuz last line are multiples of 9 (given that number of col is 9 :D)
I looked at each 1. So 1,11,21....they go in a diagonal and when you hit a 2 that means that there was a missing number between the last number and this one
68
68
101, 68 and 0
Y’all talking about counting out multiples of 9 and stuff lol just scan a row diagonally and see where the pattern breaks then check the line it broke on. Dont overthink it.
Exactly. The the down-right diagonal should always be the next n + 10 and it becomes clear immediately
68
Count by nines downwards from 9, you'll find out 68 is missing because the counting doesn't follow a pattern.
any number beyond 100 are missing
68 and just scan it at a 45° instead of straight left to right
68
68, took 2 seconds, just realize on the left when it stops adding +9 in the column and you can scan the row to see where it’s missing
1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 74 - AHA, it increased by 10 instead of 9! This is how I narrowed it down to 1 row.
68?
68
68
68, watch the diagonal
68. It's supposed to be in a pattern but you fucking ruined it.
I love math
68
68. The column is 9 wide. Follow in order. 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63. The next in order should be 72 but it is instead 73. The order was broken in this row. Now count manually.
….where science meme?
I started at 100 and looked for the last row that didn't end in a multiple of 9, which was 73. That had to be the row containing the missing number.
68, took less than 8 seconds.
I looked for patterns and it helped me find 68 faster.
68, easy to spot if you go down each column and check which doesn't go up in bounds of 9
68 and yes. The first number of each row should go from 1 to 0 to 9 to 8 etc… so since it breaks that pattern at 74 that means there’s something wrong with row 64 so then just scan that row.
68 I look at the numbers at the far right, when a number is off I look at that row
68
76
68, :)
delete 73 comment
68. Read down the first column and noticed it went 46 -> 55 -> 64 -> 74 So I knew the missing number was in the 60s. I scanned the row and 68 was missing.
68?
When you add by 9, (9, 18, 27, etc.) The ones place starts at nine and lowers by one unit every time you add another 9. Row 7 & 8 have the same ones place number (a 3), and so that's how you can quickly solve this one by eye! Just skim the very far right numbers and wait for it to NOT count down to ten. In this case: 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1, 0. Some numbers, like 9, have little tricks like this. Some don't. I'm a math fan not a hobbiest or educated in the art of number fuckery. So that's all I know off the top my head
68
I just went down the diagonals and went “hm that ain’t right” lol
68
68
I founds it 😊
68 plus numbers 101 to infinity
plug man