>>>Only three girls here, but spread over 13 years... Now that we're alone, can't say it's better or worse. Just kind of more silent. It's a different life, that's all. And they do visit often enough (and stay long enough) so we get to watch the grandchildren grow (that's when the silence is, speaking redmondese, subperfect).
>>
>>Oh, I spread them over 15 years and two weddings.
>
>I know a guy who always answers the "this yours?" question with "yes, from my first wife". Technically not wrong... first and current being one and the same (or was it same and the one?) but that was not the question.
>
>> For now this gives a wide range of experiences. I, personally, think this is was makes it worth living.
>
>Oh yes. Good people and I'm glad I got to know them.
>
>>By the way this is the year of the 30s. Me, my 1st and 3th daughter will be all 30 years old. Base halves with each step. Nestling is 2^3 but this does not count?
>
>Nice... I guess 12-24-48? Or else it would have to be 15-30-60 (which then defeats the 15 year span as there's another one) or 6-18-36 (which is impossible as there's no 30 in base 3). I sometimes hated the diophantic equations of this kind because there's not much to calculate or manipulate in any algebraic way, but rather this trial-and-error while checking the results against constraints, which sounded rather pedestrian to me. But then I've found solving this class of problems to be a nice exercise for real life problems, specially checking that the software works right - acquiring that knack to spot implausible values has helped me many times.

Son of law tends to say that you need to put more effort into it. One can solve it by riddling, but if one do the work for a mathematic solution, it's enlighning. He outclasses me often enough.
And. yes, the first one. The third is a non solution because base 3 is #1 without digit 3 as well as #2 3*3^1 does not equal 6. The second solution would mean that the fourth is of the same age as the third. While not impossible (I see two solutions for this) I would have mentioned