Not sure how to do a spoiler tag, so don`t read this if you don`t want the solution:

SOLUTION: (The number on the right is the number of loops on the left in each "equation".

That took me about 3 minutes, mostly because I was wondering why I would need my thumb as the caption states :/ Then the clue about preschoolers being able to figure it out means it can`t possibly be a math problem, so I looked at it visually instead. Maybe if they didn`t give that clue, it would have taken me longer.

If true, it`d be an interesting demonstration of the differences between the perceptions of pre-school children, who`ve not yet had the chance to over-learn the association between abstract symbols like numbers and their assigned meaning, and adults who have.

I`ve seen this problem before, though, alongside the surprising statement that pre-schoolers can solve it quickly. I`ve never seen any actual figures to back up the assertion that pre-schoolers do solve a problem like this as quickly as claimed, however.

You`re at a funeral. You see someone you`re attracted to at the memorial service amongst the assembled mourners. However, before you can speak with them, someone else distracts you. When you do eventually manage to return your attention to the object of your desire, they`ve disappeared. You ask around, and find out that they left, and that no-one knows how to contact them.

Later that week, you murder the brother of the deceased from the first funeral. Why?*

Nearly immediately because I always used to count the "holes" in numbers and letters in each sentence when I was bored in school... that`s probably more pre-school than higher education but eh.

I think there is something wrong with my thinking because I used math and removed the second column and third row down since I deemed that to be false statement

and got the answer 2

and dont know how to do a spoiler but trying anyways

I was way over-analyzing this. I started making equations out of the 4 numbers and switched around operations to see if I could get the answer. I gave up after 10 minutes. I read comments and bashed myself in the head with a tack hammer.

After finding the answer in about five minutes, I looked in the thread for the answer.

I never would have thought to look at the number of "holes," but I still found the same answer.

Basically, we`re given that: 0000=4, so (0)=4/4=1 1111=0, so (1)=0/4=0 2222=0, so (2)=0/4=0 3333=0, so (3)=0/4=0 5555=0, so (5)=0/4=0 6666=4, so (6)=4/4=1 7777=0, so (7)=0/4=0 9999=4, so (9)=4/4=1

Since (4) doesn`t appear on the left at all, that is unnecessary to find.

But in order to find (8), take any four-digit number with an 8 in it and solve.

Since 8096=5, (8)+1+1+1=5, and thus (8)=2.

And currently studying for a MA in math education.

"I would have never thought to count the damn holes. I was adding, multiplying, figuring out the square root.... "

"I was way over-analyzing this. I started making equations out of the 4 numbers and switched around operations to see if I could get the answer. I gave up after 10 minutes. I read comments and bashed myself in the head with a tack hammer."

Did you guys even red the description? PRESCHOOLERS

I looked at the description and already realised that this isn`t an equation. I`ve heard the saying that older educated people tend to over think which causes them to take longer (at times) to solve a riddle/equation. I then figured out it`s just the number of holes each number has.

I do think this is stupid though because this isn`t to do with maths but rather pointless BS nobody needs to know. It`s like. Count how many lines are in the word POO and there you go, you`re dumber than a primary school student. But can a primary school student do functions of X? No.

I`d also like to point that this took me about 3ish minutes

I like this. It bugs me that none of the numbers given to us have a 4, though, because I found values for all the other numbers to double check. 4 is still just "4=?" though.

I`m impressed I got this, but I never was one for math, so that`s probably why I could pick it up quickly. I good with word problems and logic. The solution was obvious since it has nothing to do with calculations.

So if programmers can solve this in an hour and preschoolers can sort it out in five to ten minutes, all of the people claiming to figure it out in a matter of seconds have the intelligence of an eight week old fetus.

Was totally stumped. Figured it was something simple, but even so gave up and scrolled down. Preschoolers can solve it? Ah well, I`ve gotten laid. Lets call it a wash.

@blanktom "even with the hole thing, these are all wrong. For example, the first one, 8809 has six holes, but 6 only has one hole. Therefore, 8809 <> 6"

Ugh. What made me take longer is the fact that it says preschoolers can solve it. I don`t think most preschoolers even know how to count so I was thinking it had to do with patterns or something. =.=

- Time yourself, see how long it takes to figure it out.
Holes

End spoiler

Not sure how to do a spoiler tag, so don`t read this if you don`t want the solution:

SOLUTION: (The number on the right is the number of loops on the left in each "equation".

That took me about 3 minutes, mostly because I was wondering why I would need my thumb as the caption states :/ Then the clue about preschoolers being able to figure it out means it can`t possibly be a math problem, so I looked at it visually instead. Maybe if they didn`t give that clue, it would have taken me longer.

The giveaway was that it can be done by pre-school children which ruled out almost anything above basic counting.

Took me 18 seconds.

I have higher education.

I`ve seen this problem before, though, alongside the surprising statement that pre-schoolers can solve it quickly. I`ve never seen any actual figures to back up the assertion that pre-schoolers do solve a problem like this as quickly as claimed, however.

You`re at a funeral. You see someone you`re attracted to at the memorial service amongst the assembled mourners. However, before you can speak with them, someone else distracts you. When you do eventually manage to return your attention to the object of your desire, they`ve disappeared. You ask around, and find out that they left, and that no-one knows how to contact them.

Later that week, you murder the brother of the deceased from the first funeral. Why?*

So you see the person again at the next funeral! That`s not sociopathic, that`s good planning.

So that there`ll be another funeral, and hopefully the person you were attracted to will be there again, and this time you can talk to them?

Mechanical engineer....

and got the answer 2

and dont know how to do a spoiler but trying anyways

/spoiler/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 2 1 1

/end spoiler/

Lawyer

I never would have thought to look at the number of "holes," but I still found the same answer.

Basically, we`re given that:

0000=4, so (0)=4/4=1

1111=0, so (1)=0/4=0

2222=0, so (2)=0/4=0

3333=0, so (3)=0/4=0

5555=0, so (5)=0/4=0

6666=4, so (6)=4/4=1

7777=0, so (7)=0/4=0

9999=4, so (9)=4/4=1

Since (4) doesn`t appear on the left at all, that is unnecessary to find.

But in order to find (8), take any four-digit number with an 8 in it and solve.

Since 8096=5, (8)+1+1+1=5, and thus (8)=2.

And currently studying for a MA in math education.

Ugh...this was not obvious! Who in the hell counts the "holes" in numbers???

Took about a minute and a half. Never heard of the "HOLE" method.

"I was way over-analyzing this. I started making equations out of the 4 numbers and switched around operations to see if I could get the answer. I gave up after 10 minutes. I read comments and bashed myself in the head with a tack hammer."

Did you guys even red the description? PRESCHOOLERS

i looked it up and still don`t get

In about three minutes.

Good one

We could maybe solve a lot of problems in our world..

Sorry, no time, i have to read AIB

I do think this is stupid though because this isn`t to do with maths but rather pointless BS nobody needs to know. It`s like. Count how many lines are in the word POO and there you go, you`re dumber than a primary school student. But can a primary school student do functions of X? No.

I`d also like to point that this took me about 3ish minutes

The preceding 21 equalities are incorrect.

- An Engineer

The "preschoolers solve this really fast" was a dead giveaway that the key was something trivial.

It`s like that "petals round the rose" dice thing.

The answer is simple. 2581 = 2581.

The preceding 21 equalities are incorrect.

- An Engineer

Tuche.

...You win.

Man that was easy.

# of holes ahhhhh

easy :-)

the clue is that pre-schoolers can do it. Therefore it`s not about the numbers or anything mathematical.

I like your thinking! so it should be

8809=8484 for example or even

8809=8800