This “solve this” quiz showed up on my Facebook news feed.

8 = 56

7 = 42

6 = 30

5 = 20

3 = ?

The pattern looks pretty easy, right?

8 Ã— 7 = 56

7 Ã— 6 = 42

6 Ã— 5 = 30

5 Ã— 4 = 20

So what is the correct answer?

Here’s mine:

3 = 3 — even if it’s preceded by a bunch of false statements.

Do you agree?

**Update**. This is an *old* post and I thought it had seen all the life it was going to see. Then Angel comes and leaves a comment:

It turns out that the â€˜?â€™ can be whatever we want it to be!

Angel backs up his claim with math. I think we have the definitive answer.

## 105 Comments

Shouldn’t it be 3 = 6?

Ah, but that’s what “they” want you to think. But in my universe, three does not equal six — three equals three. ;-)

By Post Author

3 never could be 6, becoz if u got the answer pattern accordingly to the statement given, 6 is already = 30, so 3 cannot be 6 anymore.

3 = 3 only in base 10.

3 does not necessarily equal 10 in other bases.

For example 3 = 11 in base 2.

So I was thinking the problem could be solved by induction??

Ronnie, that’s a great idea, but it doesn’t work out. There is no integer base n where 5

_{10}= 20_{n}.By Post Author

I think the answer should be 6 …

8 × 7 = 56

7 × 6 = 42

6 × 5 = 30

5 × 4 = 20

4 × 3 = 12

3 × 2 = 6

Alba, yeah, I see the pattern. What grates on me is how they misuse the equals sign. The first four lines make four false statements, but in a pattern that can be inferred. If one is willing to make one more false statement in the same pattern, then you are correct (yet wrong…) to say 3 = 6.

I rebelled against making a false statement, and gave the literally correct statement of 3 = 3.

By Post Author

The only problem with this argument is, that the 4 = 12 isn’t there, that is just something that is assumed. The only pattern you

cansee, is that the difference between the numbers after = is, that the difference to the numbers above is equal to 2x the numbers before the =. Which means that the correct answer is 3 = 14!Bent, I like it! (‘Course, I’m still distracted by the use of the equals sign to mean something other than equals…)

By Post Author

3 = 3.

I’m having a great time watching people try to work out all the possible answers. Or complain about the misuse of the equals sign.

Greg, I think we’re on the same page. Great minds, and all. ;-)

By Post Author

The answer is 9. The multiplier is the trick, nothing more. Each multiplier is one more than the one before it: 3 x 3, 5 x 4, 6 x 5, 7 x 6, etc.

Jon, that pattern works, too! It’s amazing how many different patterns this sequence of numbers supports.

By Post Author

The answer could also be 3 = 4 based on the following pattern:

8 = 56 (sum of all 3 digits is 19)

7 = 42 (sum … 13)

6 = 30 (sum … 9)

5 = 20 (sum … 7)

3 = 4 (sum … 7)

The difference between the sum of the 3 digits decreases by 2 each time: 6, 4, 2, 0. It’s a ‘zero sum’ pattern.

Wow, Ryan.

Anotherpattern that works!By Post Author

Brent, although I agree with your comment that 3 = 3 despite a number of prior false statements, my inclination (purely on aesthetic grounds) is to state that:

3 = (insert any number but 3)

Thus we end up with a list of false assertions, as opposed to some false followed by one true.

Simon, I admit there is a symmetry to continuing the false statements. I’m not convinced, “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is a good enough excuse to knowingly be wrong, though. There is no improvement without change… ;-)

By Post Author

Haha, thanks for this post. It just came through my LinkedIn today and it was driving me nuts.

I feel vindicated that someone felt the same as me 3 = 3!

Great minds, Dan. Great minds… ;-)

By Post Author

Great, I am not alone. My answer is 3.

For sure 3 equals 3; 3 = 3.

The statements before are all logically wrong – they just there to change the readers mind. They would be correct if the equal symbol would be replaced by congruence relations (symbol by THREE lines) and the congruent modulo would be a part of a mathematical sequence (sentential logic symbol required). But even the sequence would be incomplete (missing 4)- so there are misleading statements, and most of the persons do interpret a sequence and congruence relation – and they confirm their wrong result as correct on the basis of previous wrong given results. IF someone thinks that 3 = 9, I would like to give him/her 3 Euros and I want to have 9 Euros back – it would be fair, because it is equal!

Markus, you are my kind of people. Nice explanation. And no, I’m

notgoing to take you up on the 3 = 9 Euro trade. ;-)By Post Author

Great discussion that improves our brain function. I love it!

Markus, I had mentioned 9 as the answer on LinkedIn, as everyone were answering 6… Anyways can you and Brent pls explain as how is the Answer 3 ….and yes I do like brain storming.

Cheers Gautam.

Gautum, I think Markus does a pretty good job of explaining our position: the equals sign has meaning. To be true to its meaning, the answer mus be “3 equals 3.” All other answers ignore the mathematical meaning of the equals sign and treats it like a generic symbol dividing two columns of numbers.

By Post Author

I do not like the 3 = 14 pattern. It does not make mathematical sense. It sounds good until you attempt to prove it mathematicallyâ€¦

8 = 56

7 = 42 (56 – 42 = 14 = 2 Ã— 7)

6 = 30 (42 – 30 = 12 = 2 Ã— 6)

5 = 20 (30 – 20 = 10 = 2 Ã— 5)

3 = 14 (but 20 – 14 = 6, not 14 so the pattern becomes unstable, lending support to 3 = 6).

3 = 4 in a zero sum is interesting, though, as is 3 = 9 (though it assumes the 4 is not missing which, I suppose, is fair), but 3 = 6 is by far my favoriteâ€¦just because of the pure mathematical pattern. In a puzzle situation, it is safe to assume a portion of the formulae is missing. That is what makes it a puzzle.

Those who think 3=3 just have no sense of the beauty and romance in numbers, lol. You are far too pragmatic.

I’m too pragmatic? I don’t sense the beauty and romance in numbers?

Au contraire, mon frere. I <3 3. ;-)

By Post Author

I saw this today and immediately I was tempted to say 3 = 6. But looking at it closely I realised 4 = 12 is not among the sequence and hence we cannot prove 3 = 6 unless we make the assumption that 4 = 12 which would be wrong.

My answer is 3 = 12.

Luetkemeyer made some good analysis but I think 3 = 12 would be better suited with that analysis.

8 = 56

7 = 42 (56 – 42 = 14 = 2 Ã— 7)

6 = 30 (42 – 30 = 12 = 2 Ã— 6)

5 = 20 (30 – 20 = 10 = 2 Ã— 5)

3 = 12 (20 – 12 = 8 = 2 Ã— 4)

Looking at it you see that the difference between the numbers on the right are reducing by 2.

Dal, it looks like your analysis ignores the numbers on the left side of the equals sign. Hmm… I’m not sure that’s appropriate. Does it bother you?

By Post Author

Numbers on the right and left are not correlated.

Like you said 5 does not equal 20 so is 6 not equal to 30. The numbers on the left and the equality sign are just mere distractions and do not relate with the numbers on the right.

Ignoring the numbers on the left might not bother you, but I think the solution to this pattern needs to consider the numbers on both the left and right.

By Post Author

I see this pattern. What’s wrong in my thinking? I am not adding another series in it. Number is squared and then subtracted by the same number. Is this correct?

8

^{2}– 8 = 567

^{2}– 7 = 426

^{2}– 6 = 305

^{2}– 5 = 203

^{2}– 3 = 6Ding! Ding! Ding! I think we have a winner.

I

lovethis pattern.Interestingly, n

^{2}– n = (n × n) – n = n × (n – 1), which is the pattern I mentioned in my original post (minus the snarky final line…).By Post Author

WOW!! FUNNY ALGEBRA.

Because of this i also thought of this:

ALL NATURAL NUMBERS ARE EQUAL.

The proof starts with a formula that a

^{m}= a^{n}⇒ m = nE.g.:

Let a = 1 then … = (1)

^{-3}= (1)^{-2}= (1)^{-1}= (1)^{0}= (1)^{1}= (1)^{2}= (1)^{3}= … = 1. Then … = -3 = -2 = -1 = 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = …Let a = -1 then … = (-1)

^{-3}= (-1)^{-2}= (-1)^{-1}= (-1)^{0}= (-1)^{1}= (-1)^{2}= (-1)^{3}= … = 1. Then … = -3 = -2 = -1 = 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = …Let a = 0 then … = (0)

^{-3}= (0)^{-2}= (0)^{-1}= (0)^{0}= (0)^{1}= (0)^{2}= (0)^{3}= … = 1. Then … = -3 = -2 = -1 = 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = …So always remember a

^{m}= a^{n}⇒ m = n but a ≠ -1, 0, 1Zoheb, hmmm… I’m not sure why you don’t like my algebra. Do you not agree that n

^{2}– n = n(n – 1)? Or, to use an example, 8^{2}– 8 = 8 × 7.By the way, it might not be obvious to others that you are attempting (maybe?) to link to a clearer representation of your proof here.

By Post Author

I completely agree!!

It’s different PROBLEM that has been addressed in that blog. I just wanted to throw that in your post so I just posted it here.

I must confess I can’t follow the math in it. It looks completely wrong to me. For example 1

^{n}= 1 and 0^{n}= 0, not n. Oh well…By Post Author

Interesting mental exercise. The facts are: equations in math (and chemistry) MUST be balanced otherwise our world would end.

First: Math rules state that if you perform an operation to one side of the equation you must do the same to the other side.

Second: There is no rule at the beginning of this puzzle that sets up a pattern — it doesn’t say 8 × X = 56 so assuming that is incorrect. None of the implied patterns work either because the moment you introduce an operation you are changing the equation completely.

As Brent states, all of the equations up to 3 = ? are false. 8 does NOT equal 56.

There’s no proof needed because we know that to be true.

In the scientific world many scientist perform experiments and come to answers that are later disproven. Just because someone states that 8 = 56 doesn’t make that true. In fact it’s quite interesting to note that most people’s answers do not follow any mathematical method. Most are happy to state 3 = 6. Faced with a series of incorrect data most people would continue to interpret that as true and solve a math question incorrectly.

That’s a little troubling.

So, Robert … let’s see if we can recover this. Instead of the equals sign, let’s put a meaningless divider in it’s place. Then include the instructions, “Continue this pattern.”

What would you put in place of the question mark? ;-)

By Post Author

But that’s not the puzzle.

I get what you’re saying but then I could easily say “put a × (times) sign at the beginning preceded by variable Y and then solve.”

I must adhere to the strictest rules of mathematics. If not we are altering the results.

But to answer your question and adding elements to the equation to make it “work” then the answers would be

7 × 8 = 56

6 × 7 = 42

5 × 6 = 30

4 × 5 = 20

3 × 4 = 12 (missing)

2 × 3 = 6.

But I state again that interpreting the original data and ADDING data to find the solution is incorrect

3 equals the question mark :)

Ha! So they gave the answer to start with? :-D

This brings to mind the saying, “The first step to solving a math equation is admitting you have a problem.”

Thanks for dropping by. :-)

By Post Author

3=13

8 = 56; 56 – 8 – 7 + 1 = 42 (next result)

7 = 42; 42 – 7 – 6 + 1 = 30

6 = 30; 30 – 6 – 5 + 1 = 20

5 = 20; 20 – 5 – 3 + 1 = 13

3 = 13

Chiunti, although your answer looks different from everything before it, I don’t believe it is, plus it doesn’t explain the first pair of numbers. Here’s why I say that.

Your equation is effectively:

A

_{n}= A_{n+1}– (n + 1) – n + 1In other words, the answer for 7 is the answer for 8 less 8 less 7 plus 1. What happens if we say the answer for n + 1 is (n + 1) × n, substitute it into your proposal, and then simplify? I suggest doing this because it shouldn’t detract from your answer, and it allows us to explain the first number pair.

A

_{n}= (n + 1)n – (n + 1) – n + 1A

_{n}= (n + 1)n – n – 1 – n + 1A

_{n}= (n + 1)n – n – nA

_{n}= (n + 1)n – 2nA

_{n}= (n + 1 – 2)nA

_{n}= (n – 1)nA

_{n}= n(n – 1)What do you think?

By Post Author

Considering:

N1 = A1

…

Nn = An

then:

An = A(n-1) â€“ N(n-1) â€“ Nn + 1

N will never have value of 4, because it is not in the numbers listed.

I hope I explained.

Obviously the first line is the exception.

Chiunti. There is an error in your interpretation. You forgot the â€œ4â€ line which is obviously missing from the pattern

8 = 56; 56 – 8 – 7 + 1 = 42 (next result)

7 = 42; 42 – 7 – 6 + 1 = 30

6 = 30; 30 – 6 – 5 + 1 = 20

5 = 20; 20 – 5 – 4 + 1 = 12

4 = 12; 12 â€“ 4 â€“ 3 + 1 = 6

3 = 6; 6 â€“ 3 â€“ 2 + 1 = 2

Therefore in your pattern 3 = 6 is next in the sequence preceded by 4 = 12

Following 3 you have

2 = 2; 2 â€“ 2 â€“ 1 + 1 = 0

I tried to give a mathematical answer, however is a correlation in the order listed.

let suppose 8 = a

7 = b

6 = c

5 = d

and 3 = e

then 3 = 12 as the series goes on, but this assumption is proved logically and there will be no questions as how 8 equals 56 so. i guess my answer is interesting.

Hmm… I’m not sure I follow what you’re trying to say. What is the benefit of assigning the numbers to letters?

By Post Author

if we dont assign numbers then we take them(left side numbers) as symbols only so then 4 will not be a concern then this question can be solved logically and 3 will be 12 and no issues will be their as how 8 equals 56. 7 equals 42 and so on

Those “thingies” on the left side of the equals signs already are symbols. Unlike the letters you’re putting on the right side, numbers have a fixed value. Once you equate the letters to the numbers, you’re assigning fixed values to them as well (at least for this context). I’m not convinced you’re solving my original (and somewhat facetious) issue.

I’m more interested what logic you’re using to determine that the question mark should be replaced with 12.

By Post Author

the answer is 6 correct

Vasu, what method are you using to reach your conclusion?

By Post Author

8 × 7 = 56

7 × 6 = 42

6 × 5 = 30

5 × 4 = 20

3 × 3 = 9

answer is

3 = 9

I see your pattern, but it seems to ignore that the last step for numbers on the left decreased by two. It doesn’t seem that it matters for your pattern (and maybe it shouldn’t…).

Thanks for dropping by!

By Post Author

Wrong.. These things intentionally omit numbers. To assume “what if” is not Logical.. There is always a MOST logical conclusion without hypothetical added numbers.. The correct answer is 12

Answer … This formula stays consistent using only the Logic provided without assuming anything. The left numbers mean absolutely nothing in finding the answer other than validating the Proven Facts… SO, using ONLY the right side numbers follow this formula the validate with the left corresponding number >>> 56 – 42 = “14” then 42 – 30 = “12” then 30 – 20 = “10” then ?? from 20 will get the next in sequence figure? Note the factors reduce in perfect order will give to you the next in sequence figure of “8”? Note 14 / 12 / 10 / 8 <>> 3 x 4 = What??? Bingo TWELVE (12) … 12 is the only logical answer.

If you will only see, the Left corresponding number multiplied by the next Left side number gives to you the right side number . You will see the 4 was omitted. However in the last row, the $ is called in as the next adjacent multiplication factor… Thus 3 x “4” = 12. The absolute most logical conclusion can only be 12 as the answer

If 8 is the next in succession then at all above, validate by subtracting that 8 from twenty

Hmm… If ignoring the numbers on the left is valid, then your answer clearly makes sense.

By Post Author

Look the results :

Results for the left-hand numbers: 5, 4, 3, 2, ?; ? and the right numbers for 6, 2, 0, 0,?,?

To see if the numbers are based on logic; the size of the result is 6, because

8 × 7 = 5 6

7 × 6 = 4 2

6 × 5 = 3 0

5 × 4 = 2 0

4 × 3 = 1 2

3 × 2 = 6

2 × 1 = 2

1 × 1 = 1

results number – left rows numbers : 5, 4, 3, 2, 1; right: 6, 2, 0, 0, 2, 6

So the result is number 6

:)

I’ve read your comment a bunch of times, and I still can’t quite figure it out. Six is probably the right answer; I just don’t see how you got there.

By Post Author

Simplest is: x = x*x – x

When you assume ‘what if 8 = 56’ etc.

The answer is 6 also when you visualize numbers so that the number on right is divided by the number under it on left, e.g. 56/7.

So, you get this:

8 = 56/7

7 = 42/6

6 = 30/5

5 = 20/4

4 = a?/3

3 = b?/2

a = 12

b = 6

And proof is: x = x*(x-1)/(x-1)

E.g. 6 = 30/5 or 6 = 6*5/5

Meaning x = x

;-)

And if you want to be strict with the puzzle then the most correct answer is that…

3 = any number but 3

…because all statements are wrong, so to make your right you have to keep it wrong so all answers are in ‘harmony’ (same ‘logic’).

But if I have to pick a wrong number then it is 6, because it is beautifully wrong to state 3 = 6 in context of this interesting thought-provoking puzzle.

“3 = any number but 3”

Ha! :-D I can see your logic, and frustratingly so, it works.

The rest makes complete sense.

Thanks for dropping by. ;-)

By Post Author

Hi Brent! Was a pleasure to find your blog and see your answer and that of others. Just shows how differently different people approach the same thing :) Technically speaking yours is most correct…

7 + 7 = 14 – 56 = 42

6 + 6 = 12 – 42 = 30

5 + 5 = 10 – 30 = 20

3 + 3 = 6 – 20 = ///14///

Dimas, interesting pattern. I like how it doesn’t worry about there not being a row starting with the number four. Unfortunately, it doesn’t explain where the 56 comes from, while the n × (n – 1) pattern does.

Thanks for dropping by and writing a comment. :-)

By Post Author

I lost what I mistakenly thought was a friend over this puzzle, she tried to bully me into saying the answer was 6. That may be the most popular but not necessarily the right answer, not the way I see it.

I see it as 0, used to think it was 12.

8 = 56

7 = 42

6 = 30

5 = 20

4 = 12

3 = 6

2 = 2

1 = 1

0 = 0 with the answer being 0.

Norma Jean, because the question is “3 = ?” it seems to me that you’re answering 6, not 0. Did I miss something?

By Post Author

Math makes my head hurt; but I love how you guys have an obvious love for it. I wish I understood it better.

jess2248, doing a quick run through the names, I’d guess we’re not all guys. There are some gals in the group. :-)

And yes, math is fun. Math is a language and a tool to understand how the world works, in so many ways. And even though I like math, it can still make my head hurt. ;-)

By Post Author

Totally agree with you, 3 = 3.

I have seen this so many times. A particularly popular post at the time on my own blog is “A Little Problem for the Holidays” where you will see I commented on the misuse of the = sign.

I am not mathematical, but I am logical. What I got when I looked at this was 15. To me the pattern went like this:

15

8 = 56; (56/8 = 7)

7 = 42; (42/7 = 6)

6 = 30; (30/6 = 5)

5 = 20; (20/5 = 4)

3 = 15; (15/3 = 3)

Hmmm… Like I said. I don’t do math. 15/3 is not 3. D’oh!

normdeploom (love that name!), I think this is the same pattern many have posted, but you’ve rearranged it slightly. Instead of saying 8 × 7 = 56 you say 56/8 = 7.

What

isdifferent is how you interpret this pattern. For you, the important point seems to be that the number on the right decreases by one for each row. Thus the final row should be 9/3 = 3, with ? = 3 being your final (corrected) answer. Right?If so, you got the same answer as Jon, and for pretty much the same reason.

Thanks for dropping by!

By Post Author

Finally !!!!! I’ve been answering this question one hundred times, and it’s the first time I see someone who’s finally smart enough…. Yes, 3 = 3 …. other statements are false !!!!!

God, it took me more than a year to find you !!!! lol

Patac, I’m glad you found me, and I’m glad I made your day. Fight the good fight! :-D

By Post Author

The answer is 14

56 – 7 – 7 = 42

42 – 6 – 6 = 30

30 – 5 – 5 = 20

20 – 3 – 3 = 14

Yet another pattern. I’m not thrilled how each row is not self-contained, but instead relies on the next. That makes the 8 in the first row maybe arbitrary, and definitely useless. It does sidestep (or maybe just ignore) the skipped 4. That might be a strength instead of a fault.

Thanks for dropping by!

By Post Author

It turns out that the ‘?’ can be whatever we want it to be!

Allow me to illustrate. Take for example,

f(x) = (1/40)x

^{4}– (13/20)x^{3}+ (291/40)x^{2}– (553/20)x + 42and evaluate f(8), f(7), f(6), f(5), and f(3). It turns out that:

f(8) = 56,

f(7) = 42,

f(6) = 30,

f(5) = 20,

f(3) = 9.

Wait, what sorcery is this? Turns out that although the popular rule f(x) = x(x – 1), which gives f(x) = 6, satisfies the known values in the sequence, that

f(x) = (1/40)x

^{4}– (13/20)x^{3}+ (291/40)x^{2}– (553/20)x + 42also satisfies them–except with a different value of f(3)!

Here’s another one that also works but gives f(3) = 12:

f(x) = (1/20)x

^{4}– (13/10)x^{3}+ (271/20)x^{2}– (543/10)x + 84And here is one where f(3) = ?

f(x) = (1/120)(? – 6)x

^{4}– (13/60)(? – 6)x^{3}+ (1/120)(251? – 1386)x^{2}+ (1/60)(3138 – 533?)x + 14(? – 6)Finally, in general if you want the ‘?’ = k, i.e., f(3) = k where k is the value of your choice, then

f(x) = (1/120)(k – 6)x

^{4}– (13/60)(k – 6)x^{3}+ (1/120)(251k – 1386)x^{2}+ (1/60)(3138 – 533k)x + 14(k – 6)More details here.

Angel, wow! That is

reallycool. And to think I had thought the discussion on this problem had been completely played out.I love how for the k = 6 case, the function simplifies to f(n) = n(n-1).

And btw, I appreciate your using the relation operator in your linked paper. ;-)

Thanks for dropping by and commenting. :-)

By Post Author

8=56

7=42

6=30

5=20

3=.15

Hmm… I’m not sure I know how you got there. Care to expand on your reasoning? :-)

By Post Author

it is interesting my answer is 6 because 8 × 7 = 56

7 × 6 = 42

6 × 5 = 30

5 × 4 = 20

3 × 2 = 6

More than seven years later, this problem continues to intrigue people. I’m glad you found it interesting and, ignoring my problem with the equals sign, I agree with you.

Thanks for the visit and comment!

By Post Author

Poor horse, but I wanted to add I also calculated a non-polynomial rule.

See here: http://i.imgur.com/BHkg0Ad.png

Brent Logan! You truly do have a great mind. I was almost convinced that 3 does not equal 3! My 6 year old dog was right all along. Thanks for enlightening me.

The amusement continues….

Haha! Your dog sounds pawsome! :-D

By Post Author

Well I didn’t use anyone else’s logic, but I came to the conclusion that the answer is 3. Not even bringing 4 × 3 into the equation but my reasoning is 3 could only equal itself or 0. I’m not great at maths but that’s my answer.

gtt, you had me until you said that 3 could equal 0. But then you recovered by saying you’re not great at maths, so I think (once again) we agree. ;-)

Thanks for dropping by. :-)

By Post Author

8 = 56

7 = 42; 56 – 42 = 14; 14/2 = 7

6 = 30; 42 – 30 = 12; 12/2 = 6

5 = 20; 30 – 20 = 10; 10/2 = 5

3 = 14; 20 – 14 = 6; 6/2 = 3

Nathan, you’re not the first to propose 14, but I think you are the first to use this reasoning. I’ll have to go back and review and see whether or not yours is mathematically equivalent to another’s.

Does it bother you that 4 is skipped? It seems like you could generate the missing row for 4 and then would end up with a different answer for 3.

By Post Author

8 = 56

7 = 42; (56 – (7 × 2))

6 = 30; (42 – (6 × 2))

5 = 20; (30 – (5 × 2))

3 = 14; (20 – (3 × 2))

14

I may also elaborate on the “?” Being whatever we want it to be claim. Originally I figured the solution to be 6, holding no bearing on the equivalence statements. First of all, we are assuming that these numbers lie within the set of Real Numbers in order to apply various properties. This is valid since the integers do indeed lie within. I do want to point out that considering mathematics as a language and taking a crack at this problem it must retain logic. So, by saying that 3=3 is the answer is indeed false under the presumption that this so-called equivalence relation is false which means that the last statement must retain a false statement, so it could be any number not equal to three. There is really no reason to consider otherwise as it would conjure up logic that really isn’t there. In order to consider a sequence, it has to be a function and still abides by the equivalence statement. So, saying it can be anything is indeed illogical. However, assuming there is an underlying approach to be considered, we would have to define what “=” really is as a relation in this case. Consider the problem given:

8 = 56

7 = 42

6 = 30

5 = 20

3 = ?

We know that anything divided by 1 is itself due to the multiplicative identity axiom which means that the remainder of this quotient would be zero.

So, I can arbitrarily define the relation to be “=mod(1)”

So that 0=0 for each case.

Hence, ? Would indeed be any number. One could check to see if any other relation would work, but this one is guaranteed. However, like I said before this method does not retain the logic that should be taken into consideration when taking an unbiased glance at the problem.

8 = 8

7 = 7

6 = 6… Etc

So, 3 = 3

It’s that simple… If 0 = 0, then why 3 can’t equal 3?

You are correct in that every number can only equal itself. However, logic should flow as follows:

“If not B ⇒ not A” then

“A ⇒ B” and this type of logic can work for “if and only if statements”.

So, if we are considering the statements given it can be read as follows:

“If false and false and false and false” then what is the last statement?”

It must be false.

Because, the negated statement should be a true implying the rest being true. This is only logical when “3 = anything but three.”

That way when you negate that statement you have:

“If true, then true and true and true and true”

So that “if 3 = 3, then 5 = 5, 6 = 6, 7 = 7, and 8 = 8”

This is not a math problem. It is a purely a question of logic. Establish the basic pattern working from bottom up. Double the number on the left side of the equal sign and add it to the number in the right side, the sum of which equals the number above it. Repeat working upwards. Works going down too but subtracting obviously. And the creators left the 4 out for a reason, you can’t just add it in inorder to make your pattern work. ? = 14.

However, your solution does not utilize logic. Also, math is built off of logic, so they go hand-in-hand. You are assuming that there is a pattern which assumes the false equalities are indeed true which is contradictory. This is what I was attempting to explain previously. The most logical approach is to assume that in order to obtain a string of true statements one has to start with the false statement since that is what is implying the following statements.

It is also a simplification to state that the 4 is left out for a reason. Take for instance the sequence give, as previously mentioned.

f(n) = n(n-1) ⇒ f(8) = 56, f(7) = 42, f(6) = 30, f(5) = 20, f(4) = 12, f(3) = 6.

So, if one wants to illogically create a false equality between n and n(n-1) then you have a valid pattern. In general, most patterns do not include every term up to the term that is desired. Take for instance a series problem stating that the first term of the series is, say, 1 and that each consecutive term is increase by 8. Let n be contained within the natural numbers union with the singleton set 0. This allows n = 0, 1, 2, …

Now, find the 25th term of the series.

Writing out this series we have that the nth term can be found as:

A0 = A0, A1 = A0 + 8, A2 = A1 + 8 = A0 + 2(8), A3 = A2+8 = A0 + 2(8) + 8 = A0 + 3(8), ……. An = A0 +n(8)

The first term is A0 = 1 which is given for n = 0. Hence, the 25th term is determined for n = 24. This implies that A24 = 1 + 24(8).

So, we could still determine this pattern if we were given every term up to n – 1, because we have generalized the series. We are also able to find every term in between some kth term and the nth term. This is how patterns work.

Yea, pretty sure it comes down to intent, or what the intent of the creator was originally.

8 = 56

7 = 42

6 = 30

5 = 20

3 =

We can assume the author wanted us to multiply starting with 3 similar to the following:

8 × 7 = 56

7 × 6 = 42

6 × 5 = 30

5 × 4 = 20

3 × 3 = 9

But I do not believe that would be intuitive or logical to assume that would and could be the only right answer. Please let me explain.

8 × 7 = 56

7 × 6 = 42

6 × 5 = 30

5 × 4 = 20

4 × 3 = 12

3 × 2 = 6

As you can see, the pattern remains the same. 3 × 4 = 12; 4 × 5 = 20; 5 × 6 = 30, and so on. I say it comes down to the intent of the author.

I agree that there can be various interpretations, but I was trying to establish the irrefutably most logical solution. Irrespective of the intent of the author. The reason being that conjuring up any particular pattern is in contradiction to the logic set in place.

U tell brent wht wl b d ans???

Haha! I was going to tell you to read through all of the comments to find the answer, but I reread the post first. I think you’ll find my answers (both of them) near the end.

Thanks for dropping by and commenting. :-)

By Post Author

I like the answer of B. Luetkemeyer the most cause if you follow this pattern

8 = 56 7 = 42 (56 â€“ 42 = 14 = 2 Ã— 7) 6 = 30 (42 â€“ 30 = 12 = 2 Ã— 6) 5 = 20 (30 â€“ 20 = 10 = 2 Ã— 5)

then 4 = 15 (20-15 = 5 = 1 Ã— 5)

and 3 = 0 ( 0 Ã— 5)

I think this is a right cause numbers doesn’t really exist like the most things humans created: 3 is not equal to 3 cause 3 isn’t 3, though we might see it as a 3 but it’s just molecules who form something we can see and cause it doesn’t exist and zero doesn’t exist we can say that they are equal for us cause they actually don’t excist so they can’t be so they can’t be equal to eachother but when we have to give this a number then 3 = 0