So, You Think You`re Smart? Try This Problem [Pic]

Submitted by: CrakrJak 5 years ago in Quizzes

Time yourself, see how long it takes to figure it out.
There are 88 comments:
Female 36
took me about 5 seconds. The answer is 2
0
Reply
Male 1,059
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. =.=
0
Reply
Male 695
Meh... Easy as pi. It`s how many holes the numbers have.
0
Reply
Female 280
BTW, the video ads with sound are getting realllllly annoying!
0
Reply
Female 280
My sister is a mathematician and put this on facebook a while back. She didn`t get it and neither do I...
0
Reply
Male 361
2, about 3-4 minutes
0
Reply
Male 409
2... got it in 10 seconds. The moment I saw 0000=4 knew the answer.
0
Reply
Male 480
@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"

I like your thinking! so it should be

8809=8484 for example or even
8809=8800
0
Reply
Male 480
2
easy :-)
the clue is that pre-schoolers can do it. Therefore it`s not about the numbers or anything mathematical.
0
Reply
Male 1,569
2
0
Reply
Female 99
2... my brain is burning :))
0
Reply
Male 58
Any programmer that takes an hour to solve that, would probably take a day or 2 complete a "Hello World" app.
0
Reply
Male 2,513
<pot head, had to scroll down after a minute.

# of holes ahhhhh
0
Reply
Male 411
the longer you spend trying to figure this out, the dumber you feel....then you realize only infants and pot heads can get this quickly.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
it`s simple when you think like a `pre` schooler
0
Reply
Male 1,243
2.. did it in about 2 minutes.
0
Reply
Female 592
2! HAhahahahah
0
Reply
Male 625
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 559
pfft, I knew before I looked at it.

Man that was easy.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
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.
0
Reply
Male 10
2.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Took me about 5 sec. It`s the number of closed circles.
0
Reply
Male 8
count number of circles
0
Reply
Male 1,256
Took me about 10 seconds. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it!
0
Reply
Female 1,112
I not good with grammar.
0
Reply
Female 1,112
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.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Took about 5 seconds, and I have a higher education.

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.

[quote] The answer is simple. 2581 = 2581.
The preceding 21 equalities are incorrect.

- An Engineer [/quote]
Tuche.

...You win.
0
Reply
Male 4
The answer is simple. 2581 = 2581.
The preceding 21 equalities are incorrect.

- An Engineer
0
Reply
Female 362
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Number of loops in the individual numbers, but I guess that`s been posted already.
0
Reply
Male 303
its 2. took about a minute.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
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
0
Reply
Male 514
@HolyGod, no but I blued the description.
0
Reply
Male 1,429
Nice. Looked over it, realized I was over-thinking, then got 2. Took me about 3 or 4 minutes.
0
Reply
Male 550
Congrats to all of us who found this one.
We could maybe solve a lot of problems in our world..
Sorry, no time, i have to read AIB
0
Reply
Male 550
Some minutes (2-3)
Good one
0
Reply
Male 530
2.
In about three minutes.
0
Reply
Male 3,612
i have gotten old
i looked it up and still don`t get
0
Reply
Male 1,625
2.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
"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
0
Reply
Male 146
If 2=0 5=0 1=0 9=1 0=1 AND 8809=6 then 8=2
Took about a minute and a half. Never heard of the "HOLE" method.
0
Reply
Male 600
2. Took me about 30 secs. I have an electrical engineering degree (read: programmer) and pursuing higher education (JD)
0
Reply
Male 58
It took me 5 minutes to understand what "holes" are.. LOL!

0
Reply
Male 871
took about ten seconds to figure the answer.
0
Reply
Male 616
2
0
Reply
Male 196
i feel so stupid of how I couldn`t get the real way for answering it lol
0
Reply
Female 3,727
I would have never thought to count the damn holes. I was adding, multiplying, figuring out the square root....

Ugh...this was not obvious! Who in the hell counts the "holes" in numbers???
0
Reply
Female 7
only about 7 seconds...
0
Reply
Male 719
*looked in the thread to confirm the answer.
0
Reply
Male 719
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.
0
Reply
Male 977
I think it would be more appropriately named puzzle rather than problem, as this is not exactly mathematic.
0
Reply
Male 34
20 seconds... work in a factory... this sorta stuff amuses me
0
Reply
Male 514
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.
0
Reply
Male 663
Yup, the answer is 2.
0
Reply
Male 395
i think my mind was too stuck on hash tables, buckets and collisions to get it quickly enough X_X
0
Reply
Male 926
About 4 minutes.

Lawyer
0
Reply
Male 196
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

/spoiler/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 2 1 1
/end spoiler/
0
Reply
Male 81
i got it the first glance.
0
Reply
Male 7,753
Answer is 2: 30 seconds.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Correctamundo @ almightybob1 and leesa. You sociopaths.
0
Reply
Male 125
After 3 minutes, gave up and looked in comments for answer. I seriously would have never gotten this.
Mechanical engineer....
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Its easy because we are so visual
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Great minds leesah. Let`s set the world on fire together!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Later that week, you murder the brother of the deceased from the first funeral. Why?* [/quote]

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?
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"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.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
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.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
OK, second pop-psychology problem of the day:

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?*





[* NB: If you know the answer, apparently, that means you have sociopathic tendencies. At least in pop-psych world]
0
Reply
Male 17,512
5Cats: Hi
0
Reply
Female 2,602
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.
0
Reply
Male 878
I don`t think I could have done it without the description of the problem.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Immediately, as this is older than I am.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Half a minute. Fairly obvious.
0
Reply
Male 196
2
0
Reply
Male 646
I must have the brain of a pre-school child. Is that bad or good?
0
Reply
Male 423
I got it after the reading someones spoiler, didnt think it was that obvious lol.
0
Reply
Male 423
My air conditioning exam was easier then this, I fail to see whats going on here.
0
Reply
Male 68
3 seconds after I finished reading and I`ve never seen anything like it.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
2.

Took me 18 seconds.

I have higher education.
0
Reply
Male 265
Higher education... about 90 seconds.

The giveaway was that it can be done by pre-school children which ruled out almost anything above basic counting.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
this wasn`t hard...i almost flunked out of algebra and i got this in like a minute...
0
Reply
Male 658
2
0
Reply
Male 37,815
Hi @CrakrJak!
0
Reply
Male 1,832
It`s 2.
0
Reply
Male 13
Easy enough.

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.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
2
0
Reply
Male 3,463
Spoiler...











Holes







End spoiler
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Link: So, You Think You`re Smart? Try This Problem [Pic] [Rate Link] - Time yourself, see how long it takes to figure it out.
0
Reply