The puzzle I posted a few days ago is derived from a puzzle that’s worked its way around the Internet every so often in the past few years. See this forum in Russian (why don’t I know Russian?), or Misha Lemeshko’s blog, or Daniel Lemire for the version that mine is derived from. The incarnation I saw on Wednesday, on Facebook, which inspired this post, says that “This problem can be solved by pre-school children in 5-10 minutes, by programmers – in 1 hour, by people with higher education… well, check it yourself! :)

It’s then followed by the following list of numbers:

8809 = 6

7111 = 0

2172 = 0

6666 = 4

1111 = 0

3213 = 0

7662 = 2

9312 = 1

0000 = 4

2222 = 0

3333 = 0

5555 = 0

8193 = 3

8096 = 5

7777 = 0

9999 = 4

7756 = 1

6855 = 3

9881 = 5

5531 = 0

2581 = ?

Sort of implicit in the hint is that maybe it has something to do with the digits; Real Mathematicians think that puzzles involving digits are somehow inferior. (In *A Mathematician’s Apology* Hardy observes of facts such as 8712 = 4 × 2178 and 153 = 1^{3} + 5 ^{3} + 3^{3} that “[t]hese are odd facts, very suitable for puzzle columns and likely to amuse amateurs, but there is nothing in them which appeals much to a mathematician.”

Perhaps the natural thing to do, if this is a claim about digits, is to then assume that the claim 8809 = 6 encodes the statement , and proceed on that basis. On that basis we have and so . We still need . From the first “equality” we have and so . The answer is .

As for the version I gave — there are eight equations in nine unknowns. These were derived by removing from the “bloated” version of the puzzle all the equations with four of the same digits on the left side, and all those with a zero on the right side. The system again has equations and so on. By subtracting equations from each other we get . From “6855 = 3″ we have , or ; if we agree that all values are nonnegative then . Then from “7756 = 1″ we can get . Also from relations we alrady derived, .

But what are the values of 0, 1, and 9? It turns out that either or works, from an addition standpoint.

So why does 4 never appears on the left hand side, therefore meaning we can never work out . This is a feature, not a bug. is the number of holes in the numeral n. Some people draw 4 with one hole; some draw it with zero. So we choose and so the answer is .

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

For what it’s worth, I didn’t get the puzzle at all until after I saw the hint that pre-schoolers could solve it in 5-10 minutes, and then while scrolling through the list the key jumped out at me immediately even before I got to the rest of your post.

Just a side note as someone who’s used LaTeX on WordPress for a while: the {aligned} environment is your best friend for lists of equations like

You used 6666=0 in your solution. The puzzle says 6666=4.

Just count the circles

Like 6 has one circle, so 6=1

1 has no circles, so 1=0

8 has two circles, so 8=2

etc.

just count the number of circles of each No. in each series and you’ll get the answer

i.e 6666=4 circles

8809=6 circles

7111=0 circles

[...] hard way to solve the 8809=6 puzzle (with regression!); I solved it here. (I actually thought about using regression. But I did [...]

Why would kids look for circles in particular? I might have looked for any other shape. This is nonsense. *Damn, those grapes look sour*

dude you are so retarded, just write what the values are and add them… dumbasses

king kong you genius

The answer is 2. Just count the number of circles in these numbers… for example, 9 has 1 circle and 8 has 2, 0 has 1, and 7 has no circle….

2

It’s an awesome post in support of all the online visitors; they will obtain advantage from it I am sure.

My brother just emailed me this, and I found the answer to be 2 also, but had a different reason. I found that numbers that could be rotated 180 degrees and still be numbers are worth 1 and numbers that can be rotated to a side and still be numbers (or mathematical anyway) are worth 2. 8 is the only number worth 2, because it is viewed as the infinity symbol sideways.

I just found a third way, I think. When drawing the number, without lifting the pen, the minimum number of times that the pen comes in contact with itself by completion of the number, without lifting the pen and without retracing a part of the number is the value of the number. 8 must contact itself twice when drawn without lifting. 0, 6, 9 must contact once. all other numbers do not contact themselves without retracing.

I forgot 4, which doesn’t appear, but would also equal 1 by this third rule,

I think 4 is quite clearly, intentionally, left out of the left side of the puzzle. By the circle rule, 4 = 0. By a “closed loop” rule, 4 =1. By a rotational rule, 4 = 0. By a “minimum point of contact when drawing, without retracing” rule, 4=1. Alright, time for sleep.

On a plus musical note, Apple is functional on a local itemization armed

service and we distaff escorts Conduct you to disco biscuit.

I blog frequently and I seriously appreciate your information.

This article has truly peaked my interest. I am

going to book mark your site and keep checking for new information about once

per week. I subscribed to your RSS feed too.

It’s really a nice and helpful piece of info. I’m satisfied that you just shared this useful info with us.

Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

Hi friends, its impressive article regarding cultureand completely defined, keep

it up all the time.

I comment when I like a article on a website or if I have

something to contribute to the conversation.

Usually it’s a result of the passion communicated in the post I read. And on this post An answer to a puzzle | God plays dice. I was moved enough to post a comment :-) I actually do have some questions for you if it’s allright.

Is it only me or do a few of the comments look like coming from brain dead people?

:-P And, if you are writing at additional online sites, I would like to follow

anything fresh you have to post. Would you make

a list all of your shared pages like your twitter feed,

Facebook page or linkedin profile?

It’s actually a cool and helpful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

Good information. Lucky me I recently found your website by chance (stumbleupon).

I’ve book-marked it for later!

Your style is very unique in comparison to other people I’ve read stuff from.

Many thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I

will just bookmark this web site.

My programmer is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP.

I have always disliked the idea because of the expenses. But he’s tryiong none

the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a variety of websites for about a year and am concerned about switching

to another platform. I have heard very good things about blogengine.net.

Is there a way I can transfer all my wordpress posts into it?

Any kind of help would be really appreciated!