Need to crack this code so any help much appreciated! The numbers on the left below are the original numbers, then those on the right were generated using a formula. What is that formula? 001 / 70 002 / 83 003/ 37 004 / 12 005 / 25 006 / 38 007 / 51 008 / 64 009 / 77 010 / 68

It has the feel of a lateral thinking type answer, rather than just maths. Why are the numbers on the left 3 digits?

Thanks for the effort but it does have to be dead right! Here's some more data I've grabbed today... 210 / 82 211 / 95 212 / 11 213 / 24 214 / 37 215 / 50 216 / 63 217 / 76 218 / 89 219 / 05 220 / 93

Right then code-breakers, I've found some examples of different numbers generating identical two digit numbers as below... 003 / 37 214 / 37 133 / 39 205 / 39 131 / 13 039 / 13 In the right hands this might be the key to cracking the formula!

is it a strictly Mathematical formula or does it contain also functions like (rnd), (abs) or similar?

After looking at it for a bit - my brain hurts. But, both sets of data have a section that is linear involving the number 13. Other things i've noticed if you include a hard limit at 97, then the 13 patter mostly sticks. 001 / 70 (+13=83) 002 / 83 (+13 = 96) 003/ 37 (fubared number, but take 96 +13=12) 004 / 12 (+13 = 25) 005 / 25 (+13 = 38) 006 / 38 (+13 = 51) 007 / 51 (+13 = 64) 008 / 64 (+13 = 77) 009 / 77 (+13 = 90 - fubared) 010 / 68 (no numbers after) 210 / 82 (+13 = 95) 211 / 95 (+13 = 11) 212 / 11 (+13 = 24) 213 / 24 (+13 = 37) 214 / 37 (+13 = 50) 215 / 50 (+13 = 63) 216 / 63 (+13 = 76) 217 / 76 (+13 = 89) 218 / 89 (+13 = 05) 219 / 05 (+13 = 18 fubared again) 220 / 93 (no numbers after) This is what you get if you try to graph it - i bunched up the 200s so the graph isnt huge. Well that's what I've noticed so far, thought I'd share. Don't know if it's right, certainly not complete.

Thanks Loftie! Shows there is a pattern so there is a hard and fast formula in there somewhere. Just figuring the bugger out!

What's interesting to me is that the first numbers range from 001 to 220, yet the formula's output is always less than 100. Further interesting is that a number as low as 007 produces 51, but 215 produces 50, and when you get all the way up to 219 you get 05. Is there a data set where the formula produces a 3 digit number?

No, it's always a two digit number generated. I'll have to get a more expansive data set up for some serious number crunching!

218 / 89 (+13 = 05) ceiling of 97 so 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13 90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,01,02,03,04,05 This is all guess work tbh. Those 3 numbers though just don't make sense to me, the first graph had me thinking it was going to be a quartic equation, the second one swung me on to the idea of asymmetric triangle wave, but then I'd expect the gradients to repeat. So i'm probably just overcomplicating things! Failing that, it spells VW... Edit: Where did this mental nightmare come from blogins?

let's try to put things together: ceiling 97 step 13 (read as x*13) for rightmost digit offset -22 for each middle digit increase some sort of boxcar function (range 97) with 003 as transition point