I'm honestly kind of sick of these kind of problems where they introduce some undefined function, give you two examples of the output from given input, then ask you to determine what the output would be with a new set of inputs. Its deliberately designed to be vague and up to multiple interpretation so that it promotes in-fighting over who has the more "accurate" interpretation. Its nothing but really sloppy math made to look like a puzzle.
fully agreed with you, its so vague almost any answer is correct, you could also say 64 is right as in 11x11=4^1 , 22x22 = 4² 33x33=4³ = 64 so stupid^^
+Irok 121 lol you are idiot, even if the function is f: R*R -> R and we have only 2 values of the function f(11,11) and f(22,22), we know nothing about this function. Even if it was given that the function is continuous or even if it is differentiable or maybe it is a polynomial, there would still be infinitely many solutions and in some cases (if nothing is given about the function like in this shitty problem) the "level" of infinity will be far greater than R's "level" of infinity.
I thought it would be 64. You have four digits. The number load states to which square you should take it. So 4 one's= 4¹, 4 two's = 4² and 4 three's should then be 4³ = 64.
That was my initial thought too. As others have pointed out, with only two examples there aren't enough to establish a definitive answer. I did plumb for 36 in the end because that answer involved all the digits. Adding 33×33=36 44×44=? would have resolved that ambiguity, although I was tickled by the solution that said “It's ‘?’, you just said so!”
It is as valid as anything else since it starts as a lie. 11x11 is not equal to 4 ever. So I’m with you. It’s a logic puzzle not an equation. So 64 it is. That or we can make 33x33=rabbits. It’s as true a statement as the others.
Every logically explainable solution should be considered correct. Therefore, in my opinion all presented in the video solutions are equally acceptable. I'd like to provide one more solution: convert the multiplications to additions and then multiply the digits of each result. Here the answer will be (once again) 36. In detail: 11+11=22, 2x2=4 / 22+22=44, 4x4=16 / 33+33=66, 6x6=36.
@@timeturner1259 Youre a goober...all you have to do is realize the thing thats needed to evaluate it correctly is insert + sign between each set of double digits...33x33 is 3+3 x 3+3 is 6x6 = 36...SMH
@@johnrobertson7583 once again mind your language boy i would have been smooth if you would have minded your language i wouldn't have minded or bothered about it so much
Not "THE" correct answer, but "A" correct answer. With no clear rule being given, any fitting result is equally valid, none of them being better than the others.
right, because these 'genius' facebook puzzles are always intentionally ambiguous. They're designed to generate lots of comments to game facebooks algorithms, so a more difficult puzzle with a definitive answer would be much less effective
You are, in my opinion, exactly right. These types of questions always require some 'outside the box' thinking. The point is, outside who's box? For eg. What's the next number in the series 1, 2, 4, ? Logically it's 8. But if your house number is 1249, nine is a logical answer to you.
The SAT uses the terminology, ''which is the _more_ correct answer.'' So while there may be multiple correct answers, the one they're looking for is the ''more correct'' answer. In which case 36 is the more correct answer because it fits more patterns to help the predictions. Also, I hate these trick questions because the X and = don't mean a damn thing. I got the answer by squaring each number individually and adding them together.
The "=" is fine. This problem is actually about unlabeled units. The two explanations in this video don't make any sense based on the information provided. If the left side should be labeled as 'foo' units and the right side labeled as 'bar' units, then it becomes clear that there are 30.25 foos in a bar. Making the answer 36, which unfortunately is the same as the strange interpretation in the video.
The correct answer is F, as in the grade the author should receive, because the first two equations are wrong and the author didn't even bother to finish the last one.
everyone’s brains are so interesting that’s rlly cool you went straight to powers! i went to addition (11x11 is 1+1+1+1=4 22x22 is 2+2+2+2=16) but also (11x11=121 and 1+2+1=4 22x22=484 and 4+8+4=16)
Tbh, I found it easy as well. Took under 10 seconds. So like, 11 x 11 = 4 is like ( 1 + 1 ) multiply ( 1 + 1 ). So it became 2 x 2 = 4. Same goes with other.
@@amoure_akio I've found 36 at the beginning quickly, then the more I think the more I found there is no answer, and 11 it's not 1+1 or 2 if it's written 11, if I've 34 years old I can't say oh good I've got 3+4 so 7 years old.....
The issue with patterns like this is that if there is more than one possible answer, there is no way to dispute it without being given more entries from the pattern Another method that also gives 36 is to sum ALL of the digits and then times the sum by the digit for that entry: (2 + 2 + 2 + 2) * 2 = 16
@Heberth R.. He's not a liar, all you need to do to get a valid answer is to work out a method to get 11 × 11 to equal 4, which also makes 22 × 22 equal 16, and apply that to 33 × 33. There are multiple ways of doing this, and the 2 ways in the video aren't the only ways. I've figured out a way to get 33 × 33 to equal 64, and the way works for both 11 × 11 and 22 × 22. It's really not hard to find other ways and answers other than 36 and 18. So Heberth, who's the liar now?
The thing is that you could also get 4 from 11 x 11 by multiply 11 by 11 = 121 and then add to get 4 and you could also multiply 22 x 22 =484 and when add you get 16, so this might temp some believe that you would do the same to 33 x 33, but that's not the case.
I got 2 other solutions. 64 and 256. I went like this: every next result is either a multiplication of the previous by 4, or it is a square of previous result. Therefore, if it's the former, 4x16 = 64, and if it's the latter, 16² = 256
this is wrong cause the whole idea is to see something in the question side to come to the ans side, its not about the ans side at all, questions arent formed like that.
I can see 64: With 11x11 there are 4 ones. 4^1 = 4. Similarly 22x22 give 4 twos. 4^2 = 16. Following that 4^3 gives 64. This following a pattern that most might not readily see. Without another line to eliminate the possibility of using powers, I see 64 as a valid option...
Yes! I got 256....the product of 16 x 16, since in the previous 2 examples, the answer to the second equation is the answer to the first equation multiplied by itself. So the answer to the third equation is the product of the answer to the second equation multiplied by itself, 16 x 16. Much easier way to find an answer than all the other configurations!!
I got to 36 in less than 30 seconds, but when you asked, at the end, "did you get to 36?", I was waiting for the "well, you'd be wrong!" response. What a surprise when it didn't happen! I'd feel like a genius if I hadn't been wrong on every other problem posed here.
Not bragging but I did the same by doing the product of the sums of the digits. About a minute for me though. I was surprised as well, as I am not any good at these type of things.
@@Jonsson474 I arrived at 64 immediately after seeing the video thumbnail - but I thought there must be a trick. After around 15 seconds I arrived at 36.
You guys did so much work…I just recognized a pattern of how the original person would have done the first two problems and replicated it I.e. adding the numbers u would be multiplying then multiplying those together lol 💀💀
The correct answer: two data entries is not enough data to determine a trend or map a best function? Or making your own rules makes everything possible and correct?
yes because in puzzles these values can have different meaning, there're like hundreds of problems just like these where the values don't have their original identity
That right there is the biggest problem. Just one or two more lines should be enough to eliminate all but one correct answer. Stopping early is just lazy. It's not like they needed a dozen or more lines.
How many data entries are enough to determine a trend or map a best function? For instance, I ask: F(0) = 0 F(1) = 1 F(2) = 4 F(3) = 9 F(4) = 16 F(5) = 25 F(6) = 36 F(7) = 49 F(8) = 64 F(9) = 81 F(10) = ? You say "100, obviously. F is just "the square of". And I answer: "WRONG! F is defined as the square of the input number IF that number is less than ten, and the cube of the input number if the input number is ten or more. So the right answer is 1,000." Wittgenstein was really into this.
it.s just a coicidense because they are the first two and they are low numbers(it.souds weird,i know but it happends to me to do this mistake in other problems)
@@eduardvalentin830 But that's not a mistake. It's a legitimate pattern, and there is nothing saying that it isn't legitimate. If I instead of saying 11*11 and 22*22 and so on, say f(11)=4 and f(22)=16, then I can make a function where that is valid (that formula is f(x)=4^(x/11) if you were wondering).
You can find 36 in another way that I found pretty interesting. First is finding a hidden value between the expected outcome and the given outcome. (11×11)x=4 (22×22)x=16 x=4/121 So (33×33)(4/121)=36 Easy notation would be if a^2=x for 11^2=4 and 22^2=16 then x=4(a^2)/121 This is compared to your solution's notation which would be if aa^2=x for 11^2=4 and 22^2=16 then x=4(a)^2 I would love a problem like this if they also gave a solution for 1111*1111 as our answers would be different depending on the approach. Also, my way would fit for any digit and especially repdigits if you took the digits as a single value.
That's the way that I got to 36. I just imagined that the left sides of the equations were multiplied by a hidden variable and solved for it. In both of the first two equations, the hidden variable equaled 0.033058 (which is 4/121 and 16/484), so I multiplied the left side of the third equation by that and got 36.
Finally someone who solved it this way. The only way 11 * 11 = 4 "makes sense" is if some of the numbers are in different units. Using a variable (x in this case) to handle the scaling seems to be the simplest way to deal with the unknown units. Taking it one step further, the value of x doesn't even need to be solved for. Since we already know that (11 * 11)x = 4, we can just substitute that in any place we find it. (22 * 22)x = 16, factor a 2 out of each 22 2 * 2 * (11 * 11)x = 16, sub in a 4 2 * 2 * 4 = 16, story checks out. (33 * 33)x = ???, factor a 3 out of each 33 3 * 3 * (11 * 11)x = ???, sub in a 4 3 * 3 * 4 = 36
Both. Speaking as someone who is moderately gifted in mathematics (several grade levels ahead at a young age with a roughly ~95% average, though most of the grade level gap has disappeared now due to a lack of time), there is almost nothing the general public misunderstands more. Research backs this up - mathematics is the only subject where students and professionals have vastly different views on what the subject is about. That isn’t very relevant to the topic, but back to the point: the word “genius” really has been downgraded, in a lot of cases to the point where it just refers to someone who can understand something you can’t and gets thrown around. This is part of the larger problem of anti-intellectualism in society, which has really always been with us. I could write for a while on it, but the bottom line is that it is cool to be smart and to know things, and people need to stop saying otherwise. That’s why we get these kinds of viral “IQ tests”. Thanks in advance for tolerating my long-winded, overly serious answer.
Yes, and "find the next number in this sequence" puzzles. There are technically infinitely many possible solutions to these things, some of them just happen to have some intuitive logic behind them.
I agree with the solution 36 as well, but for an other reason if you calculate all the products with modulo 39 or 117 it comes up with this solution as well
Presh Talwakar. Such idiotic puzzles end up in Indian competitive exams to fool students and waste time of students. for 90% of exams both options 18 and 36 will be available and to reduce the marks. Often in competitve exams correct answer will be set as 18. Actually such questions are to be banned because they will not ask us to count the dots and one cannot imagine whats in the examiners head. Actually for me I would like to take 33 Rs 33 times from examinaer and give him only 18 Rs(not even 36) Because it is correct for him according to his equality. Then only those bastard paper setters will stop giving such idiotic questions.
Waste of time. 11x11=121 not 4. 22x22=484 not 16. On what planet is this nonsense valid without another variable? Unless it’s invisible, only seen by boffins too clever for their own good.
@@pensiveboogie You're not paying attention. There's a lesson to be learned if you look for it. Even if there isn't a plus between them you can see they are adding the numbers together! Thus 11*11 = 4 Just because you don''t see the plus doesn't mean it ain't there. 22*22 = 16 once again the plus is between both 2s even though you don't see it 2=2 -4 on both ends 4*4 -= 16 33*33 =36 3+3= 6 on both ends and 6*6 = 36. Sometimes the answer isn't always obvious.
@@pensiveboogie Bravo! Thank God someone doesn't buy into the waste of time of his interpretation of these simple math expressions. "Eleven times eleven" is 121 on planet earth. Folks who buy into this ridiculous "logic" probably can't find their way to the front door.
I actually got 36 in a different way: First, you take the sum of the digits. Then you multiply that by one of the digits. 1+1+1+1=4 4x1=4 2+2+2+2=8 8x2=16 3+3+3+3=12 12x3=36
When you make up your own arbitrary rules without defining them, all you're left with is a bad question. Accordingly, I'm going to say the answer is 42. Just define "=" as ">". 11x11>4 22x22>16 33x33>42
You could do that, but part of the problem is to figure out the rules, as arbitrary and vague as they may be. That being said, I'm not calling this a good puzzle.
I agree, these "puzzles" are too often arbitrary. I also hate the v + w : x * y - z puzzles which are frankly just written ambiguously, or at least not as clear as possible. It's like trying to figure out what a moron is saying, it's generally a waste of time.
I was originally going to say something defending these problems, saying there's an implicit assumption about blah blah blah, but no, you're absolutely right. Why is Presh taking " 'IQ' Tests" from *Facebook*, of all places? It's a waste of his talents and our time. The two ropes and the "easiest hardest geometry problem" had some interesting conclusions, but this did not lead to anything new, fundamental, or interesting.
Drifter's Diecast They are. All of this BS is simply an example of how people today are uneducated at best when it comes to how to write a mathematical formula correctly. You cant just write incorrect formulas and think your "smart". Theres no logic behind it and its just a waste of everyones time.
when I first saw this, my way to solve it was: multiply the two numbers normally 11x11=121 22x22=484 33x33=1089? then add all the digits together 1+2+1=4 2+8+4=16 1+0+8+9=18?
I got the answer they wanted, but really, 11x11=4 is incorrect. The real answer is 121. So these are actually just puzzles that you’re supposed find the pattern to, to solve them.
Also, answer could be 4 * d^2 Where d is the digit making the numbers d=1, 11 x 11= 4 x 1^2 = 4 d=2, 22 x 22= 4 x 2^2 = 16 d=3, 33 x 33= 4 x 3^2 = 36 and so on...
And then there is me, who thought the Answer was 64. I just saw 1's in the first line and thought: hmm this must be 4^1=4 and then 4^2=16 and then 4^3=64 Those puzzles are just completely up for interpretation, since they don't use mathematical signs like they are supposed to.
I taught secondary/college mathematics for 42 years and if I were to give this problem to my students, I would say that obviously 11x11 does not equal 4, but do the existing “equations” suggest a pattern that would allow one to fill in the question mark with a credible solution. I wouldn’t tell them there’s one CORRECT answer but if they could justify their answer mathematically, then they would receive full credit.
You're absolutely right. As an engineering instructor myself, these sorts of "puzzles" are more a test of reasoning and interpretation - useful for developing problem skills in ambiguous circumstances. I got 36 as the answer; took me ~ 30 secs. 11^2 = 121, 121/4 = 30.25 : 22^2 = 484, 484/16 = 30.25 : 33^2 = 1089, 1089/30.25 = 36 ... therefore, ? = 36 ... of course, this may or may not be the best answer - just what the question suggests is an appropriate conclusion.
@@Snarkapotamus But then you'd have to put brackets around the addition problems... (1+1) x (1+1) = 2 x 2 = 4 (2+2) x (2+2) = 4 x 4 = 16 (3+3) x (3+3) = 6 x 6 = 36 Simply adding addition signs would give you: 1+1x1+1 = 1+1+1 = 3 2+2x2+2 = 2+4+2 = 8 3+3x3+3 = 3+9+3 = 15 Based on the pattern that was shown, I immediately though of breaking it down with addition signs and parentheses, because that's what made the most sense to me and allowed me to rationalize 11x11=4 and 22x22=16. Multiplying the actual terms and then adding the digits in those products doesn't make as much sense to me, because it requires creating an entirely new set of steps that aren't readily implied by the examples shown. As was mentioned above, this is sort of puzzle is about assessing problem solving and logic using extrapolation, and then being able to defend the solution you found while simultaneously being able to understand how someone else may have arrived at a different answer using a different set of extrapolations.
Man you guys are overthinking this. It’s not 11 times 11, it’s 11x11, or 11 times the variable x times 11. It can also be written as 121x=4. x then is equal to 4/121. We can be sure that x equals this in the second equation, where x=16/484, or 4/121. By substituting this value for x into the equation at the bottom, we get 1089*4/121=36. Nerds.
Weird answer I got, it's 18. You just calculate the equation normally, then you get the sum of all the digits as the answer. So 121 would be 4, and 484 would be 16. Hence we got 1089 as 18. There really isn't a correct answer, if there is ever a puzzle that includes more than 3 or 4 numbers to start the sequence with then it would have actually had only 1 correct answer.
This question is too ambiguous, as two different methods yield the same answer for the first 2 equations; without something more specific, both answers (36 and 18) are correct. The only question at this point is how pedantic you want to be in the evaluation of the “correctness” of the solution. This video could also illustrate this in a reversed method where the “correct” answer is 18
@@SeraphSilverstar Much agreed that it is ambiguous. But I think Presh is right on this one, I initially got 18 as my answer. But there is actually a third way to get 36 as well. If you sum all of the digits and then multiply the sum by just one of the digits (doesn't matter which since they are all the same on each line on the left side)...then one could also argue that (3+3+3+3)*3 = 36. Given that there are at least three ways to get to the conclusion of 36, it most likely to be the correct answer though 18 is still possible.
That is because YOU are correct. There is MORE THAN One possible answer therefore the Question itself is WRONG. I also made it 18. So much for the Question Master.
I just found a logic chain like 11×11=4 since (1+1+1+1)×1=4 then 22×22=16, (2+2+2+2)×2=16 and finally 33×33=36 cuz (3+3+3+3)×3=36. Idk. Don't judge me. It's my own way of thinking.
There are plenty "rules" (two variable functions) that are matching the criteria given by the first two lines. I think all of them has to be considered good solutions. For this reason both solutions introduced at the beginning equelly good answers. Here is an other one: 11x11= 2^(1+1)=2^2=4 ; 22x22= 2^(2+2)=16 and in this case 33x33= 2^(3+3)=2^6=64
My in the head calculation was 81 (9x9) - regarding one as a unity aberration to equal two as the eleven thus 11x11 = 2x2=4; 22x22 is 4x4=16; 33x33 is 9x9 = 81. Oh, well..
It seems that there is an error there, because in 11×11 you add 1+1 to get 2, but in 33×33 you multiply 3×3 to get 9 In 22×22 there is no difference, because 2+2 is 4 and 2×2 is also 4 Following your logic with 11×11, that is, 1+1 = 2, and using in 33×33, 3+3 = 6 and 6×6 = 36
@@violletx4103 i treat one as a separate unity, especially in the context of this puzzle - in the Fibonacci series one is also unique since nothing is added together to arrive at it - so it has a power all its own; a beginning without a beginning - therefore, in in the context of 11, 22, 33… it must have a power more than a singularity and the next power in the puzzle is two; - so in my head 11x11 has to have one more than a single entity to equal four; say in infinite geometry, then the progression can proceed, same as in the Fibonacci series, logically - my mind then chose to multiply the other digits to get 81..
@@violletx4103 that more i thought the deeper i went - here is the latest: in the first equation the one could be a substitute for the square root of two (1.414…) as a valid way to view the puzzle; then all the multiplication is correct and.the answer is 81. Thank you for reaching out.
because by the logic of adding at the end 11x11 could = 1+2+1=4, 12+1=13, 1+21=22 and so on for 22x22 and 33x33. where as adding at the start leads to only 1 logical answer.
81. If you multiply 1x1 in both sides, you are left with 2x2, which equals 4. If you multiply 2x2 in both sides, you are left with 4x4, which equals 16. If you multiple 3x3 in both sides, you are left with 9x9, which equals 81. That’s what I got.
Both answers were correct and we can come up with many more correct answers for this one. There is absolutely no reason to try to figure out which answer is "more correct" as there is no such thing.
I would disagree in that often when you have two 'correct' answers one is usually better than the other in some way, in this case however I'd judge it is about dead even, so there is a conundrum.
Some puzzles like this excludes the ambiguity by giving a different pattern, but you still need to figure the logic behind it to solve, that way it doesn't have the ambiguity like this. I came up with the first solution which was "wrong" and the sequence matches, I kept wondering, why is it wrong? given the examples it shouldn't be wrong, it should just be different, there's no other information. There's an app called "Math Riddles" with lots of puzzles like this, some can be very tricky to solve but they make sure to exclude different answers with proper sequences.
My answer is almost like yours. I figured that: 11x11 stands for "1", hence 4^1=4 22x22 stands for "2", hence 4^2=16 33x33 stands for "3", hence 4^3=64.
Doesn't really hold though. If there are four 1s, it would be 1+1+1+1 = 4. Four 2s would be 8. Four 3s would be 12. This doesn't account for the multiplication in the pattern, though, so it can't be that. If you were going by power, it wouldn't be 4^1. It would be 1^4, which is 1. 2^4 is 16. 3^4 is 81, but the pattern already doesn't match. Going solely on the pattern, (1+1) x (1+1) = 4. (2+2) x (2+2) = 16. Therefore, by the logic, (3+3) x (3+x3) = 36.
@@Playhouse76. It can be this answer, since it works for both examples showed. All that a valid answer needs to do, is to show a way to get 11 × 11 to equal 4. Use the same method to get 22 × 22 to equal 16, and then use that to answer 33 × 33. Also, the way I got 64, was to do the number of digits to the power of the average of those digits. 11 × 11 has 4 digits. The average of those digits is 1, so the answer would be 4¹ which equals 4. 22 × 22 has 4 digits. The average of those digits is 2, so the answer would be 4² which equals 16. 33 × 33 has 4 digits. The average of those digits is 3, so the answer would be 4³ which equals 64. This method is also valid, since it works for both of the examples shown before 33 × 33. So, 64, 18 and 36 are all valid answers, and there are many more. So, it does hold, it just depends on how you word it.
It really needs to give you the result of 44x44 so that you can confirm your method. It feels a bit vague. I did get 36 by just adding up each side first then multiplying.
I figured it out in ten seconds or so, practically by accident. I just looked for a pattern and did... 1+1+1+1x1 =4 2+2+2+2x2= 16 3+3+3+3x3= 36 Edit: forget the whole bit in brackets thing - you get what I mean
It's not testing how you do the math or which answer is 'right', it's testing how you see and think about the problem. It's not a math test, it's an IQ test -- your answer shows which pattern you see, which tells the tester how you think.
Its not genius. Such idiotic puzzles end up in Indian competitive exams to fool students and waste time of students. for 90% of exams both options 18 and 36 will be available and to reduce the marks. Often in competitve exams correct answer will be set as 18. Actually such questions are to be banned because they will not ask us to count the dots and one cannot imagine whats in the examiners head. Actually for me I would like to take 33 Rs 33 times from examinaer and give him only 18 Rs(not even 36) Because it is correct for him according to his equality. Then only those bastard paper setters will stop giving such idiotic questions.
Yes, I did get to 36. I added the sum of the digits in each equation, then multiplied by the digit used in each equation. (1+1) + (1+1) x 1=4, or (2 + 2) x 1=4, or 4 x1+4. (2+2) + (2+2) x 2=16, or (4+4) x 2=16, or 8 x 2=16. (3+3) + (3+3) x 3=36, or (6+6) x 3=36, or 12 x 3=36.
I got 81. The figured the double digits on each side really represented “# squared”, meaning (X * X)(X * X), where X was the shown number. So basically: 11 = 2 22 = 4 33 = 9 2*2 = 4 4*4 = 16 9*9 = 81 EDIT: I goofed. I had realized about an hour after posting that 1*1 would still equal 1, but kept forgetting to make this edit to mention that until now.
That's the kind of thing that gets views, creating multiple solutions deliberately and imply there's only one solution, only "genius" gets them correct. So people would argue that they are correct and ask people to support them, thus sharing it with others, getting viral. In fact, true genius doesn't even care.
No, you're not - Treating the left hand side as the value the four on the right hand side should be raised makes as much sense (in fact, to me it makes more sense, because it transforms the problem from a mathematical calculation problem (where the puzzle asker is cheating by withholding pertinent information, which not only makes the puzzle harder, but also ensures the solver cannot verify they have actually solved it) to a logical problem where only misdirection is used, which is a valid tactic in making puzzles more difficult)
Ok, but wouldn't 256 also be a valid answer to the third line/equation then? We seem to be assuming there is some kind of relationship between the right-hand expressions. Assuming yet another quadratic relationship is as reasonable as the factor 4... 36 would be another possibility if we're instead assuming relationships between the left-hand side variable values
This is no mathematical problem. It’s just logic pattern solving, commonly seen in intelligence tests. It takes seconds t solve if you’ve seen similar problems before.
Flora no, I’m with you here. Because no function was specified and all of these equations are false equivalencies, I got the two answers he talks about, but assuming the false equivalencies just account as arbitrary place holders, we’d just follow another assumed function. So I got all three, 18, 36, and 64.
@@mackattack1297 Yea i had 256 and 36 but i was 99% sure it was 36 lol only becuse 256 seemed to easy..However when you have mulitiable plausable answere it really up to each and every mind to find a logically build up and every answere is plausable since you dont have any giving answere!!
Not really. This first looks to be 4 to the power of 1 which is 4; the second is then 4 to the power of 2 (4 squared) which is 16, so the third should logically be 4 to the power of 3(4 cubed), which is 64. I agree that there is not enough information to guarantee any of the answers being correct as ALL are subject to interpretation. I wonder what the answer would be if one applied a Fibonacci progression to the equations....but then I was judged to be a genius many years ago and am probably too old for the conversation
Or you could go with the argument "this math is BS anyways, you never explained the rules so I'll just make up my own. How about 666 for an answer? And now you have to explain to me how I derived it". Nobody would ever call this "math", or even a math puzzle. This beyond silly.
Really, it needs at least one more line in order to allow people to determine which it's going to be. Both of the proposed solutions violate the normal rules for doing math without introducing an appropriate operator to do so. The real answer is that these are all inequalities.
I don't know why you think it's up to other people to try and explain your ignorance and how you "derived" it. The video wasn't trying to argue that this is a strict and rigid mathematical proof or function. I think most people understand it's meant to be a fun puzzle designed to spark creativity and insight in the reader through pattern recognition and inductive reasoning. My guess is that you're so jaded and cynical, having lost any imagination or creative spark you once had, it upsets you that there are people out there that can still find enjoyment in outlets such as this. Because of your frustration at yourself, and at the world, you need to try and suck the fun away from others, or try to make others feel bad for enjoying something. I think if you spent more time encouraging others to be creative, instead of stifling the fun, you might just remember what it's like to feel like a human again :)
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Thank you for educating us all on the basic mathematical operators that we all learnt in primary school. If it wasn't for your comment I'm sure myself, and many others, would have never even realised the conventional mathematic rules that this puzzle breaks. For a second though, do you think it's possible that that's the way the puzzle was designed? That maybe the intention was to get people to look at a normal every day maths problem, and find creative and unconventional ways of solving it. You also mention that you would have liked the creator of the puzzle to provide more datapoints; would you also like them to just define the function for you so you don't have to think at all? Also, the issue with providing more data points is that it actually arbitrarily restricts the readers ability to solve the problem in a novel manner. Encouraging the reader, or different readers, to come to different conclusions leads to comparisons and discourse around the solutions, with the realisation that no single solution is the only valid or "correct" one. Even if the original author came out and revealed what the 'canon' solution was, it would make any of the alternative solutions that were valid for the defined data points, any more or any less correct. Maybe you are devoid of any ingenuity, but don't try and suck the fun away from others just because you can't think outside the box :)
Using the formula "mod(aa*aa, 117)" also works, giving 36 as well. Not worth much, but as a function to use on the left side to get the answer, this is the best I could come up with.
These viral puzzles seldom conform to how mathematics is to be formulated. If you ignore the rules of the system, without even stating what or how much you're removing, there can't be any correct answer, since anything could have been ignored.
@Snivader I totally get tired of these kinds of videos aswell, but it's just that he does occasionally have a very fun challenge, so I can't just stop watching without missing out ;-;
Well put SmileyMPV. This channel is about 15% things I find pretty fascinating, 50% boring stuff, and 35% things that actually piss me off with their inanity and click-bait qualities. This is definitely among the third type of videos. But it's hard to ignore that 15%.
When the information is low, any result could be right. Like 18, 64, 36 and so on. We need more information so that we can find the relation of question. We can't find the right relation only by knowing 2 samples.
@James Mills here, you have f(X) = Y you have 2 couples f(11)=4 and f(22)=16.. Picture the graph of the function f(x) . How many function f do you think can exist that include the two points (11;4) and (22; 16) ? Give me any number C as the solution : f(33)=C. I can even give you several (there's a little less than infinity^infinity) function where f(11)=4, f(22)=16 and f(33)= C
@James Mills I don't understand your point. I'm telling you : give me a solution, I'll give you a method. For instance I'll give you a 2nd degree function... You want the solution to be 10 ? the function is : (-9/121)x² + (39/11)x -26 You want the solution to be 36 ? the function is : (4/121)x² You want the solution to be 2021 ? the function is : (1993/242)x² - (5955/22)x +1985 It's easy to find a 2nd degree polynomial that goes through 3 points
It is FAR simpler than described. Simply add the digits either side of the multiplication sign before multiplying. 11= 1+1 = 2. 2 x 2 = 4. 22 = 2+2 = 4. 4 x 4 = 16. 33 = 3+3 = 6. 6 x 6 = 36.
I can't remember who first said it, but it doesn't make it less true: "If you can't explain it to a five-year-old, you probably don't understand it, yourself." I thought that went very well with your "making complex ideas simple" statement quite nicely.
@@Snarkapotamus I wonder if that's where the quote I heard evolved from. I specifically remember the quote I heard referencing explaining something to a five-year-old... but the Einstein quote is probably where the quote I heard originated from.
Correct ... The sum of the digits is 18 not 36. To come to the posters conclusion he would have needed to show 3 examples and then asked to calculate the fourth.
The second you find any correlation or pattern between the first two answers you can find any answer for the last equation and technically be correct. It’s way too open for interpretation.
I also came up with 36, but I got there through a different route. When I first saw the problem, I noticed that the first two answers given were both "square" numbers. I then noticed that if you take the total number of groups of 11 in each equation (excluding the answer) and then square that number, you get the answer given: 11 x 11: A total of 2 groups of 11. 2 x 2 = 4. 22 x 22: A total of 4 groups of 11. 4 x 4 = 16. So, assuming that this is the pattern intended: 33 x 33 has a total of 6 groups of 11. 6 x 6 = 36.
you can also add up every individual digit in the calculation and then square it to give you the same products for 11x11, its (1+1+1+1) * 1 = 4 for 22x22, its (2+2+2+2) * 2 = 16 for 33x33, its (3+3+3+3) * 3 = 36
@@sohailsiddiqui2961 that's absurd...You're not using all the given data(like even though it feels like you're using all 1's in 1st line,you're not making use of all 2's and 3's in rest 2 lines)
It would be meaningful (in future) for these ill-defined problems is to come up with as many POSSIBLE answers (with proper reasoning)...... rather than only one correct answer. That is lateral thinking and logic.
I did : 11x11 = 4 22x22 = 16 found a pattern 1+1+1+1x1 = 4 2+2+2+2x2 = 16 3+3+3+3x3 = 36 was confused when he said that his method was THE correct answer
Another possibility is that "x" is a bilinear form, i.e. for a,b,c,d in R, (ab)x(c+d)=a*(bx(c+d))=a*((bxc)+(bxd)) and (a+b)x(cd)=((axc)+(bxc))*d. Then we have 22x22=(2*11)x(2*11)=2*2*(11x11)=4*4=16 and 33x33=(3*11)x(3*11)=3*3*(11x11)=9*4=36. This only provides us with solutions for terms of the form axa, so I think the fact that the author of the puzzle asks for such a term lends credibility to this explanation.
I didi it the same way ...to me .. is not about math .. is about logic process ...11x11 , 2x2 , 3x3 just tells me .. the numbers are multiplying by themselves .. maybe I am wrong but that is why every head is different.
In this problem = can stand for equals and still work. The problem would be with "X" call it corss, cross often is used to mean normal multiplication, but it doesnt have to mean multiplication. We can define it to be any binary operation on some set, meaning it takes two elements of the set and "crosses" them with each other to produce a third element. So here we can have = function as an equals sign and X be defined as a binary operation that takes two elements of the set, multiplies them together then takes the sum of their digits in base 10. = is always equals, but we can define other operations to be what ever we want, although the puzzle its self is fairly trivial, the structure it creates under this binary operation is quite interesting.
"Forest/Trees" I arrived at 36 in a much, much simpler and faster way. I simply multiplied the sum of the digits by the "common" number on the left of the equation. More of a pattern approach, I suppose. 4 X 1 = 4 8 X 2 = 16 12 X 3 =36 I was surprised to see all the fuss. "Over thinking it" came to mind. I enjoy your channel. Thanks.
Many correct answers. As this attempt at humor illustrates: "What is worse than biting into an apple and finding a worm?" "Biting into an apple and find one half of a worm." -or- falling on the ice while walking to work in a two acre parking lot in a Sunbelt State that has no ice or snow removal equipment and all the ambulances are busy with other emergencies, and realizing that you forgot to pack an apple in your lunch that day, and getting lost because your car is covered in ice and all the cars look the same... Otherwise, a wormy apple is better than a few other mishaps.
I got 18. But it really depends on what your "x" operator means in the first place. If you see "x" as the usual "times" operator than 11x11=4 is false. So, given the false statement, any answer will be correct. If the "x" operator means first multiply, then sum each digit, then my answer is correct. There is no debate about this kind of open ended questions.
We can also say its 64 by saying it's just 4¹ in the first 4² in second so will be 4³ in the third These problems are a mess and don't prove much of anything it's just a quick aptitude test with no results
Based on logic, I got 256, since 4 multiplied by itself (i.e., 4x4) yielded 16, through which you would then infer that the next number SEQUENTIALLY should be 16 multiplied by itself (i.e., 16x16) thereby resulting in the number "256".
Yes I got that too. But then I realized that it is no good. The problem is that you ignore what is at the left side of the = sign, and basically retrieve the answer only from the right side numbers. Or, put differently: you get into problems when asked for the value of 12 x 11, or 12 x 21.
Taking a quick look without watching. I decided after considering various exponential and base changes that a plus sign between Integers gives the answer 36. So 1 + 1 × 1 + 1 = 4 and 2 + 2 × 2 + 2 = 16 hence 3 + 3 × 3 + 3 = 36.
Different calculations, reply if correct please. 11x11=4. (1+1)x(1+1)=4 22x22=16. (2+2)x(2+2)=16 33x33=? (3+3)x(3+3)=36 44x44=? (4+4)x(4+4)=64 Etc. Etc.
+Liam Frowijn 11x11=4 22x22=16 33x33=64 explanation: 4 is the result of 4^1, and the operation which result is 4 is 11*x*11 16 is the result of 4^2, and the operation which result is 16 is 22*x*22 64 is the result of 4^3, and the operation which result is 64 is 33*x*33 ;) that logic can be true too :P and yours is right, :D no problem with it
ReDJstone Smash That can also represent "powers of 4" pattern, but many people may not see it this way. We can also write 55 x 55 as 4^5 (1024) and 77 x 77 as 4^7 (16,384)
I got this 36 in about 30 seconds looking at it.. Add all the 1's up (=4) then multiply by 1 = 4 Add all the 2's up (=8) then multiply by 2 = 16 Add all the 3's up (=12) then multiply by 3 = 36 That's the patten I saw..
Add plus signs in-between each digit, like this: 11 x 11 ---> (1 + 1) x (1 + 1) = 2 x 2 = 4. Doing so with 33 x 33 is 36. (3 + 3) x (3 + 3) = 6 x 6 = 36
These are the most annoying answers/comments to these videos. They are on every video like these. It's basically the equivalent of commenting on a video and correcting its grammar by saying something like "*they're". We get it. You outsmarted the video and called it out on a technicality, even though it is obvious the guy who made the video already knows this and the puzzle is just using the equals sign to keep it simple to read for everyone.
That is one way to solve the puzzle, because it is not a math problem, per se; it is a number puzzle. And it can have several seemingly correct answers. However, because the first two equations are false, and there are several ways to 'solve' the puzzle, only the developer will know the correct answer. But I think adding the 'not equal' sign is elegant, and shows thought. I see quite a few 'correct' answers that can make sense, and can be defended.
I got 36, 64 or 81. I got 36 by adding the digits together like he did. I got 64 because 4 squared is 16 which could make sense since 16’s line is all 2’s. By this logic 4 cubed is 64. I got 81 by adding the first par of digits, for example 1+1 is 2, then squaring those added digits ,since they exist in pairs of 2, so you would get; (1+1)^2=4, (2+2)^2=16, and (3+3)^2=81.
1.5 million views!
The answer can also be 64
11*11 = 4
4 power 1 = 4
22*22 = 16
4 power 2 = 16
33* 33= 64
4 power 3 = 64
But the most logical answer according to me is 18 as explained by you
I like the way you explain things . I am your big fan from India and i also love calculations and mathematical problems .
Only by thumbnail:
(1+1)*(1+1)=4
(2+2)*(2+2)=16
(3+3)*(3+3)=81
@@Aurea_Astrae umm... 3+3 doesn't equal 9.
I'm honestly kind of sick of these kind of problems where they introduce some undefined function, give you two examples of the output from given input, then ask you to determine what the output would be with a new set of inputs. Its deliberately designed to be vague and up to multiple interpretation so that it promotes in-fighting over who has the more "accurate" interpretation. Its nothing but really sloppy math made to look like a puzzle.
fully agreed with you, its so vague almost any answer is correct, you could also say 64 is right as in 11x11=4^1 , 22x22 = 4² 33x33=4³ = 64 so stupid^^
256: 11x11 = 2^(2^1), 22x22 = 2^(2^2), 33x33 = 2^(2^3)
It is a harder type of puzzle. At least you actually KNOW that there is a function involved.
I said the exact thing on the last "puzzle". I called it, what if, math.
+Irok 121 lol you are idiot, even if the function is f: R*R -> R and we have only 2 values of the function f(11,11) and f(22,22), we know nothing about this function. Even if it was given that the function is continuous or even if it is differentiable or maybe it is a polynomial, there would still be infinitely many solutions and in some cases (if nothing is given about the function like in this shitty problem) the "level" of infinity will be far greater than R's "level" of infinity.
The correct answer would be 1089. The first two equations are just wrong :P
Exactly lol.
Glorious
":P"
Exactly
Finally! Someone who understands basic math!
I thought it would be 64. You have four digits. The number load states to which square you should take it. So 4 one's= 4¹, 4 two's = 4² and 4 three's should then be 4³ = 64.
Exactly 👍🏼
same thinking but after a few minutes I think the right answer is 36; this is why:
(11*11)/(22*22)= 4/16 then we have : (22*22)/(33*33)= 16/36
That was my initial thought too. As others have pointed out, with only two examples there aren't enough to establish a definitive answer. I did plumb for 36 in the end because that answer involved all the digits. Adding 33×33=36 44×44=? would have resolved that ambiguity, although I was tickled by the solution that said “It's ‘?’, you just said so!”
It is as valid as anything else since it starts as a lie. 11x11 is not equal to 4 ever. So I’m with you. It’s a logic puzzle not an equation. So 64 it is. That or we can make 33x33=rabbits. It’s as true a statement as the others.
It kind of doesn't make sense since there's use of × and use of + which involves two different operations. Like what would 23×22 be? 3²×1³?
Every logically explainable solution should be considered correct. Therefore, in my opinion all presented in the video solutions are equally acceptable.
I'd like to provide one more solution: convert the multiplications to additions and then multiply the digits of each result. Here the answer will be (once again) 36. In detail: 11+11=22, 2x2=4 / 22+22=44, 4x4=16 / 33+33=66, 6x6=36.
That’s how I did it, thanks for putting it in clear notation ^_^
So 3+3 = 6 and 3×3=9
Then the ans is 69 believe me guys its the most genuine ans you can get
@@timeturner1259 Youre a goober...all you have to do is realize the thing thats needed to evaluate it correctly is insert + sign between each set of double digits...33x33 is 3+3 x 3+3 is 6x6 = 36...SMH
thats how i saw it and came up with 36 in about 10 seconds and i'm definitely not a genius.
@@johnrobertson7583 once again mind your language boy i would have been smooth if you would have minded your language i wouldn't have minded or bothered about it so much
Not "THE" correct answer, but "A" correct answer. With no clear rule being given, any fitting result is equally valid, none of them being better than the others.
right, because these 'genius' facebook puzzles are always intentionally ambiguous. They're designed to generate lots of comments to game facebooks algorithms, so a more difficult puzzle with a definitive answer would be much less effective
@@carpii true true
You are, in my opinion, exactly right. These types of questions always require some 'outside the box' thinking. The point is, outside who's box? For eg. What's the next number in the series 1, 2, 4, ? Logically it's 8. But if your house number is 1249, nine is a logical answer to you.
The SAT uses the terminology, ''which is the _more_ correct answer.'' So while there may be multiple correct answers, the one they're looking for is the ''more correct'' answer. In which case 36 is the more correct answer because it fits more patterns to help the predictions.
Also, I hate these trick questions because the X and = don't mean a damn thing. I got the answer by squaring each number individually and adding them together.
yeah, I got 81
i really hate whenever the "=" symbol is abused this way XD
I hate it too, and it's so unnecessary. I don't see why they can't use an arrow or function notation
HaHaHa
Equations like “11*11=4” is basic math but they decided to over do everything and incorrectly use “=“. This isn’t math. It is a riddle.
The "=" is fine. This problem is actually about unlabeled units. The two explanations in this video don't make any sense based on the information provided. If the left side should be labeled as 'foo' units and the right side labeled as 'bar' units, then it becomes clear that there are 30.25 foos in a bar. Making the answer 36, which unfortunately is the same as the strange interpretation in the video.
it would be better represented by something like if/then. If 11x11 then 4
The correct answer is F, as in the grade the author should receive, because the first two equations are wrong and the author didn't even bother to finish the last one.
Aaron Angel this is very true because if they finished their would be a set answer and their isn’t so therefore I agree,very much.
هلو حبيبي
@@therisingrainbow251😙
The Rising Rainbow wrong ‘there’ twice...
u
Interesting. I got 64 by going 11n=4^n, but I guess it all comes down to perspective!
same
yea bro i got the same approach instinctively........ maybe the question is too controversial.xD
I also got 64. Also feel there wasn't enough information to accurately figure out the next number. It certainly comes down to perspective.
everyone’s brains are so interesting that’s rlly cool you went straight to powers! i went to addition (11x11 is 1+1+1+1=4 22x22 is 2+2+2+2=16) but also (11x11=121 and 1+2+1=4 22x22=484 and 4+8+4=16)
I don't understand. That equation has two solutions. What did you mean?
*Believe it or not but 33x33=1089*
lol
KNAWLEDGE
,16 correct bro
18
I believe it
"'Only geniuses can solve" should be written "only idiots can set such ridiculous and vague puzzles"
Looool yes, equation means nothing
Tbh, I found it easy as well. Took under 10 seconds. So like, 11 x 11 = 4 is like ( 1 + 1 ) multiply ( 1 + 1 ). So it became 2 x 2 = 4. Same goes with other.
I get it,there no logic in it, like I think logic depends on each single human being☺️so there is no answer
@@amoure_akio I've found 36 at the beginning quickly, then the more I think the more I found there is no answer, and 11 it's not 1+1 or 2 if it's written 11, if I've 34 years old I can't say oh good I've got 3+4 so 7 years old.....
22×22=4（11×11）=16
33×33=9（11×11）=36
that is the only reasonable answer i find.🤦
I just put in the spot 4 raised to the power of the digit in the left, example:
11x11=4^1=4
22x22=4^2=16
then in that case
33x33=4^3=64
That's pretty smart. Well done :D
Yeah I thought of that too, there are so many valid ways
I got 64 as well, but acording to the video the answer is 36
@@user-ap4 yeah but the question can be interpreted in many different ways
This was mine.
11×11 --> (1+1)×(1+1)= 4
So that means...
22×22 --> (2+2)×(2+2)= 16
Which also means...
33×33 --> (3+3)×(3+3)= 36
I got it right!
The issue with patterns like this is that if there is more than one possible answer, there is no way to dispute it without being given more entries from the pattern
Another method that also gives 36 is to sum ALL of the digits and then times the sum by the digit for that entry: (2 + 2 + 2 + 2) * 2 = 16
That's the way I've reached 36.
Poorly defined questions have poorly defined answers.
I have found 5 more "valid" answers - just take your pick
@Heberth R..
He's not a liar, all you need to do to get a valid answer is to work out a method to get 11 × 11 to equal 4, which also makes 22 × 22 equal 16, and apply that to 33 × 33.
There are multiple ways of doing this, and the 2 ways in the video aren't the only ways.
I've figured out a way to get 33 × 33 to equal 64, and the way works for both 11 × 11 and 22 × 22.
It's really not hard to find other ways and answers other than 36 and 18.
So Heberth, who's the liar now?
@@MarioLandscape I found 48, (
1+1+1+1)*1 = 4
2+2+2+2)*2 = 16
3+3+3+3)*4 = 48
@@user-eb6vc2gs9e Why is the last line *4 instead of *3? You would've gotten 36...
@@gentlesnow123 because 1, 2 is power of 2. So I said 4
@@gentlesnow123.
They double each time.
First is *1.
Second is *2, since it doubles.
So, using that, the third would be *4.
His method is valid.
“Most people think the correct answer is 36”
Me thinking the digits ought to be applied to the number four as a power, outputting 64:
This follows to what I believe LOL
Omg same
sameeeeee
That was my conclusion as well.
It was not even considered.
Same
(1+1)×(1+1)=4
(2+2)×(2+2)=16
(3+3)×(3+3)=36
The thing is that you could also get 4 from 11 x 11 by multiply 11 by 11 = 121 and then add to get 4 and you could also multiply 22 x 22 =484 and when add you get 16, so this might temp some believe that you would do the same to 33 x 33, but that's not the case.
@Igor Szerszunowicz
exactly the way I solved it.
Also
11x11=121 11x11=4
22x22=484 22x22=16
484/121=4 4x4=16
33x33=1089 33x33=?
1089/484=2,25 16x2,25=36
1089/121=9 4x9=36
33x33=36
I thought of something like this:
11*11=4=11-7
22*22=16=22-6
33*33=33-5=28
I dont why I'm the only one that thought of that.
@@ylberpllana8701 but the correct answer was 36 not 28 any reasoning about your answer?
I got 2 other solutions. 64 and 256. I went like this: every next result is either a multiplication of the previous by 4, or it is a square of previous result. Therefore, if it's the former, 4x16 = 64, and if it's the latter, 16² = 256
I got the same two solutions
this is wrong cause the whole idea is to see something in the question side to come to the ans side, its not about the ans side at all, questions arent formed like that.
@@crazyd4411 Questions should be formed from the answer. When you are making a quiz, for example, you know the answer, then you ask the question.
I can see 64:
With 11x11 there are 4 ones. 4^1 = 4.
Similarly 22x22 give 4 twos. 4^2 = 16.
Following that 4^3 gives 64.
This following a pattern that most might not readily see. Without another line to eliminate the possibility of using powers, I see 64 as a valid option...
Yes! I got 256....the product of 16 x 16, since in the previous 2 examples, the answer to the second equation is the answer to the first equation multiplied by itself. So the answer to the third equation is the product of the answer to the second equation multiplied by itself, 16 x 16. Much easier way to find an answer than all the other configurations!!
I got to 36 within a few seconds without doing the complicated stuff in the video😂
Me too
Me too
i takes me about half minute.
I looked at it for about 15 -20 seconds, came up with 36. Occam's Razor simplest answer is most often the correct one.
Me too:)
I got to 36 in less than 30 seconds, but when you asked, at the end, "did you get to 36?", I was waiting for the "well, you'd be wrong!" response. What a surprise when it didn't happen! I'd feel like a genius if I hadn't been wrong on every other problem posed here.
Not bragging but I did the same by doing the product of the sums of the digits. About a minute for me though. I was surprised as well, as I am not any good at these type of things.
It was way to easy; took like 10 seconds to solve.
@@Jonsson474 same
@@Jonsson474 I arrived at 64 immediately after seeing the video thumbnail - but I thought there must be a trick. After around 15 seconds I arrived at 36.
I legit got TV is in 5 seconds, I just saw that it was 2^2 and 4^4, there’s a difference of 2 so it must be 6 and 6^2=36
When 11x11=4, I do NOT want that person computing my salary.
That's because
11 x 11 =
1+1 x 1+ 1 =
2 x 2 = 4
Pretty simple
That’s the government computing your salary after taxes
@@davepecoraro4767 actually 1+1×1+1 is 3 because products are done first in a left to right setting
@@jackweslycamacho8982 yeah so just take (1+1) x (1+1)
i think that person does compute mine.
You guys did so much work…I just recognized a pattern of how the original person would have done the first two problems and replicated it I.e. adding the numbers u would be multiplying then multiplying those together lol 💀💀
The correct answer: two data entries is not enough data to determine a trend or map a best function?
Or making your own rules makes everything possible and correct?
yes because in puzzles these values can have different meaning, there're like hundreds of problems just like these where the values don't have their original identity
According to me the answer could be 256 or 64
That right there is the biggest problem. Just one or two more lines should be enough to eliminate all but one correct answer. Stopping early is just lazy. It's not like they needed a dozen or more lines.
How many data entries are enough to determine a trend or map a best function?
For instance, I ask:
F(0) = 0
F(1) = 1
F(2) = 4
F(3) = 9
F(4) = 16
F(5) = 25
F(6) = 36
F(7) = 49
F(8) = 64
F(9) = 81
F(10) = ?
You say "100, obviously. F is just "the square of". And I answer: "WRONG! F is defined as the square of the input number IF that number is less than ten, and the cube of the input number if the input number is ten or more. So the right answer is 1,000."
Wittgenstein was really into this.
@@colonelfredpuntridge8799 when n goes to infinity
There can be more than one answer to such questions. There are no conditions attached to this question. Hence no answer is right or wrong!!!!!
I got 256 because I squared
100% 👍
Um... he just wrote this equations wrong because 11*11 isn’t 4 so isn’t 22*22=16 there is no “if” statement
I am only astonish by your dilightful wordplay
Your first two sentences are 100% correct. But there is a correct answer because 33x33 is 1089.
If you take the quantities (4) to the power of the values.
4^1=4
4^2=16
4^3=64
it.s just a coicidense because they are the first two and they are low numbers(it.souds weird,i know but it happends to me to do this mistake in other problems)
@@eduardvalentin830 But that's not a mistake. It's a legitimate pattern, and there is nothing saying that it isn't legitimate. If I instead of saying 11*11 and 22*22 and so on, say f(11)=4 and f(22)=16, then I can make a function where that is valid (that formula is f(x)=4^(x/11) if you were wondering).
Eduard 23 how do u know it's a coincidence there is no correct answer so it can't be a coincidence since there are multiple answers
Yea i also thought like that
You can find 36 in another way that I found pretty interesting.
First is finding a hidden value between the expected outcome and the given outcome.
(11×11)x=4
(22×22)x=16
x=4/121
So (33×33)(4/121)=36
Easy notation would be if a^2=x for 11^2=4 and 22^2=16 then x=4(a^2)/121
This is compared to your solution's notation which would be if aa^2=x for 11^2=4 and 22^2=16 then x=4(a)^2
I would love a problem like this if they also gave a solution for 1111*1111 as our answers would be different depending on the approach.
Also, my way would fit for any digit and especially repdigits if you took the digits as a single value.
That's the way that I got to 36. I just imagined that the left sides of the equations were multiplied by a hidden variable and solved for it. In both of the first two equations, the hidden variable equaled 0.033058 (which is 4/121 and 16/484), so I multiplied the left side of the third equation by that and got 36.
Finally someone who solved it this way. The only way 11 * 11 = 4 "makes sense" is if some of the numbers are in different units. Using a variable (x in this case) to handle the scaling seems to be the simplest way to deal with the unknown units.
Taking it one step further, the value of x doesn't even need to be solved for. Since we already know that (11 * 11)x = 4, we can just substitute that in any place we find it.
(22 * 22)x = 16, factor a 2 out of each 22
2 * 2 * (11 * 11)x = 16, sub in a 4
2 * 2 * 4 = 16, story checks out.
(33 * 33)x = ???, factor a 3 out of each 33
3 * 3 * (11 * 11)x = ???, sub in a 4
3 * 3 * 4 = 36
Either we have misunderstood the word genius or the word itself has been down graded 😂😂😂
36, nuff said!!!
@@thecreation3892 So 64 is wrong then?
Both. Speaking as someone who is moderately gifted in mathematics (several grade levels ahead at a young age with a roughly ~95% average, though most of the grade level gap has disappeared now due to a lack of time), there is almost nothing the general public misunderstands more. Research backs this up - mathematics is the only subject where students and professionals have vastly different views on what the subject is about.
That isn’t very relevant to the topic, but back to the point: the word “genius” really has been downgraded, in a lot of cases to the point where it just refers to someone who can understand something you can’t and gets thrown around. This is part of the larger problem of anti-intellectualism in society, which has really always been with us. I could write for a while on it, but the bottom line is that it is cool to be smart and to know things, and people need to stop saying otherwise.
That’s why we get these kinds of viral “IQ tests”.
Thanks in advance for tolerating my long-winded, overly serious answer.
I dislike puzzles which use standard mathematical symbols with different meanings. Most of them are just guessing games, not real puzzles.
They're not guessing games, they're just overly vague "math" puzzles. You still have to think a little bit, but they don't really mean anything.
Yes, and "find the next number in this sequence" puzzles.
There are technically infinitely many possible solutions to these things, some of them just happen to have some intuitive logic behind them.
Whenever I look at these, my gut response is, "Actually, 11*11 isn't 4 and 22*22 isn't 16. 33*33 is 1089."
I second that. Other than generally being very shallow and ambiguous puzzles, couldn't they use notation like 'f(11, 11)=4' or '11, 11 -> 4'?
I agree with the solution 36 as well, but for an other reason if you calculate all the products with modulo 39 or 117 it comes up with this solution as well
I think the answer is not to waste time on this kind of things.
thats because you dont like using logic
Presh Talwakar. Such idiotic puzzles end up in Indian competitive exams to fool students and waste time of students. for 90% of exams both options 18 and 36 will be available and to reduce the marks. Often in competitve exams correct answer will be set as 18. Actually such questions are to be banned because they will not ask us to count the dots and one cannot imagine whats in the examiners head. Actually for me I would like to take 33 Rs 33 times from examinaer and give him only 18 Rs(not even 36) Because it is correct for him according to his equality. Then only those bastard paper setters will stop giving such idiotic questions.
Waste of time. 11x11=121 not 4. 22x22=484 not 16. On what planet is this nonsense valid without another variable? Unless it’s invisible, only seen by boffins too clever for their own good.
@@pensiveboogie You're not paying attention. There's a lesson to be learned if you look for it. Even if there isn't a plus between them you can see they are adding the numbers together! Thus 11*11 = 4 Just because you don''t see the plus doesn't mean it ain't there. 22*22 = 16 once again the plus is between both 2s even though you don't see it 2=2 -4 on both ends 4*4 -= 16 33*33 =36 3+3= 6 on both ends and 6*6 = 36. Sometimes the answer isn't always obvious.
@@pensiveboogie Bravo! Thank God someone doesn't buy into the waste of time of his interpretation of these simple math expressions. "Eleven times eleven" is 121 on planet earth. Folks who buy into this ridiculous "logic" probably can't find their way to the front door.
I actually got 36 in a different way:
First, you take the sum of the digits. Then you multiply that by one of the digits.
1+1+1+1=4 4x1=4
2+2+2+2=8 8x2=16
3+3+3+3=12 12x3=36
When you make up your own arbitrary rules without defining them, all you're left with is a bad question.
Accordingly, I'm going to say the answer is 42. Just define "=" as ">".
11x11>4
22x22>16
33x33>42
You could do that, but part of the problem is to figure out the rules, as arbitrary and vague as they may be. That being said, I'm not calling this a good puzzle.
TheFishCostume Like I said: the "puzzle" is so vague the rules could be whatever you want.
I agree, these "puzzles" are too often arbitrary. I also hate the v + w : x * y - z puzzles which are frankly just written ambiguously, or at least not as clear as possible. It's like trying to figure out what a moron is saying, it's generally a waste of time.
I was originally going to say something defending these problems, saying there's an implicit assumption about blah blah blah, but no, you're absolutely right. Why is Presh taking " 'IQ' Tests" from *Facebook*, of all places? It's a waste of his talents and our time. The two ropes and the "easiest hardest geometry problem" had some interesting conclusions, but this did not lead to anything new, fundamental, or interesting.
"The only way to win is not to play"
Questions with multiple answers are just flawed and pointless
***** Yup, I know right?
Stormtrooper1488 Its sad to say that yea, maybe. Its normal for youtubers to run out of ideas, so yea
Drifter's Diecast unless it's a polynomial equation which has multiple solutions and is perfectly valid in algebra
Drifter's Diecast They are. All of this BS is simply an example of how people today are uneducated at best when it comes to how to write a mathematical formula correctly.
You cant just write incorrect formulas and think your "smart". Theres no logic behind it and its just a waste of everyones time.
this is just like my theology so many definite input but no definite output
11x11=121
1+2+1=4
22*22=484
4+8+4=16
33*33=1089
1+8+9=18
I think that way is logical too
The best!
Yeh men me too thought the same
Me too.
Nope,i mean 1+8+9=18
@Maxwell Van Gulik 1+0+8+9=18
when I first saw this, my way to solve it was:
multiply the two numbers normally
11x11=121
22x22=484
33x33=1089?
then add all the digits together
1+2+1=4
2+8+4=16
1+0+8+9=18?
Problems like this are usually create by people who think they are much brighter than they are.
@@MarleneWizdom that makes no sense
@@DaleDix Read again..now it does
It's just that my "Auto Correcting System" changed the sentence which i had written...And i didn't even notice
Theyre usually made for fun, but taking a step in the wrong direction is easy even if youre incredibly smart
Agreed!!!
LoL
The answer is "?". It says right there.
When Humans use
100% of their brain
Haha hilarious
Homo sapiens at their strongest
Yeah mr white, yeah maths
Omg pure genius...
And what if the furmula is that: aa*aa->4^(a)
11*11=4¹=4
22*22=4²=16
33*33=4³=64
This is actually a very prominent solution!
And that was exactly my first solution...and kind of actually more intuitive
I got the answer they wanted, but really,
11x11=4 is incorrect. The real answer is 121. So these are actually just puzzles that you’re supposed find the pattern to, to solve them.
@@jelias9247 of course, isn't that what numbers all about? Patterns?
Also, answer could be
4 * d^2
Where d is the digit making the numbers
d=1, 11 x 11= 4 x 1^2 = 4
d=2, 22 x 22= 4 x 2^2 = 16
d=3, 33 x 33= 4 x 3^2 = 36
and so on...
It can be 64 as if take a common digit from each equation and then take that to the power of 4.
4^1 = 4, 4^2 = 16 so 4^3 = 64
And then there is me, who thought the Answer was 64. I just saw 1's in the first line and thought: hmm this must be 4^1=4 and then 4^2=16 and then 4^3=64
Those puzzles are just completely up for interpretation, since they don't use mathematical signs like they are supposed to.
I taught secondary/college mathematics for 42 years and if I were to give this problem to my students, I would say that obviously 11x11 does not equal 4, but do the existing “equations” suggest a pattern that would allow one to fill in the question mark with a credible solution. I wouldn’t tell them there’s one CORRECT answer but if they could justify their answer mathematically, then they would receive full credit.
This was another easy problem that took me less than a minute to solve with simple logic.
You're absolutely right. As an engineering instructor myself, these sorts of "puzzles" are more a test of reasoning and interpretation - useful for developing problem skills in ambiguous circumstances. I got 36 as the answer; took me ~ 30 secs. 11^2 = 121, 121/4 = 30.25 : 22^2 = 484, 484/16 = 30.25 : 33^2 = 1089, 1089/30.25 = 36 ... therefore, ? = 36 ... of course, this may or may not be the best answer - just what the question suggests is an appropriate conclusion.
@@sgtcbusmc8495 - If you put + signs between the numbers on either side of the x symbol, it makes more sense..
@@Snarkapotamus But then you'd have to put brackets around the addition problems...
(1+1) x (1+1) = 2 x 2 = 4
(2+2) x (2+2) = 4 x 4 = 16
(3+3) x (3+3) = 6 x 6 = 36
Simply adding addition signs would give you:
1+1x1+1 = 1+1+1 = 3
2+2x2+2 = 2+4+2 = 8
3+3x3+3 = 3+9+3 = 15
Based on the pattern that was shown, I immediately though of breaking it down with addition signs and parentheses, because that's what made the most sense to me and allowed me to rationalize 11x11=4 and 22x22=16. Multiplying the actual terms and then adding the digits in those products doesn't make as much sense to me, because it requires creating an entirely new set of steps that aren't readily implied by the examples shown. As was mentioned above, this is sort of puzzle is about assessing problem solving and logic using extrapolation, and then being able to defend the solution you found while simultaneously being able to understand how someone else may have arrived at a different answer using a different set of extrapolations.
Yes, mathematically this is an aberration. He could have used an ad hoc invented symbol, instead of "="
No.
The correct answer:
false, false, 1089
1=a; 2=b; 3=c
aa=a^2; bb=b^2; cc=c^2
hence:
33×33=81 q.e.d.
Yes, its the "*CORRECT*" answer
maybe the basis is the lines
*C o r r e c t e s t*
@@ebbi19401 but in your assumption a^2 would be still 1 , so that aa x aa can't go to 4
Man you guys are overthinking this. It’s not 11 times 11, it’s 11x11, or 11 times the variable x times 11. It can also be written as 121x=4. x then is equal to 4/121. We can be sure that x equals this in the second equation, where x=16/484, or 4/121. By substituting this value for x into the equation at the bottom, we get 1089*4/121=36. Nerds.
I thought of 64. 11x11=4=4^1 22x22=16=4^2 33x33=64=4^3
Me too
That's what I got
Nope not me but it was cool
I got 36
Or (1+1)*(1+1) = 2*2 = 4
(2+2)*(2+2) = 4*4 = 16
(3+3)*(3+3) = 6*6 = 36
Weird answer I got, it's 18. You just calculate the equation normally, then you get the sum of all the digits as the answer. So 121 would be 4, and 484 would be 16. Hence we got 1089 as 18. There really isn't a correct answer, if there is ever a puzzle that includes more than 3 or 4 numbers to start the sequence with then it would have actually had only 1 correct answer.
My exact thoughts and way of doing this question lol. Guess the question is just ambiguous
That was my method too. I guess that we will not know unless the creator of this puzzle gives us the answer
This question is too ambiguous, as two different methods yield the same answer for the first 2 equations; without something more specific, both answers (36 and 18) are correct. The only question at this point is how pedantic you want to be in the evaluation of the “correctness” of the solution.
This video could also illustrate this in a reversed method where the “correct” answer is 18
@@SeraphSilverstar Much agreed that it is ambiguous. But I think Presh is right on this one, I initially got 18 as my answer. But there is actually a third way to get 36 as well. If you sum all of the digits and then multiply the sum by just one of the digits (doesn't matter which since they are all the same on each line on the left side)...then one could also argue that (3+3+3+3)*3 = 36. Given that there are at least three ways to get to the conclusion of 36, it most likely to be the correct answer though 18 is still possible.
That is because YOU are correct. There is MORE THAN One possible answer therefore the Question itself is WRONG. I also made it 18. So much for the Question Master.
I just found a logic chain like 11×11=4 since (1+1+1+1)×1=4 then 22×22=16, (2+2+2+2)×2=16 and finally 33×33=36 cuz (3+3+3+3)×3=36. Idk. Don't judge me. It's my own way of thinking.
No one's gonna judge you, this way also makes sense
I thought the same too!
That's mathematically equivalent to the first solution shown in the video.
(a+a)(a+a) = (2a)^2 = 4(a^2) = a^2 + a^2 + a^2 + a^2 = a(a+a+a+a)
Yas!!!
saame
There are plenty "rules" (two variable functions) that are matching the criteria given by the first two lines.
I think all of them has to be considered good solutions. For this reason both solutions introduced at the beginning equelly good answers. Here is an other one:
11x11= 2^(1+1)=2^2=4 ; 22x22= 2^(2+2)=16 and in this case
33x33= 2^(3+3)=2^6=64
My in the head calculation was 81 (9x9) - regarding one as a unity aberration to equal two as the eleven thus 11x11 = 2x2=4; 22x22 is 4x4=16; 33x33 is 9x9 = 81. Oh, well..
It seems that there is an error there, because in 11×11 you add 1+1 to get 2, but in 33×33 you multiply 3×3 to get 9
In 22×22 there is no difference, because 2+2 is 4 and 2×2 is also 4
Following your logic with 11×11, that is, 1+1 = 2, and using in 33×33, 3+3 = 6 and 6×6 = 36
@@violletx4103 i treat one as a separate unity, especially in the context of this puzzle - in the Fibonacci series one is also unique since nothing is added together to arrive at it - so it has a power all its own; a beginning without a beginning - therefore, in in the context of 11, 22, 33… it must have a power more than a singularity and the next power in the puzzle is two; - so in my head 11x11 has to have one more than a single entity to equal four; say in infinite geometry, then the progression can proceed, same as in the Fibonacci series, logically - my mind then chose to multiply the other digits to get 81..
@@violletx4103 that more i thought the deeper i went - here is the latest: in the first equation the one could be a substitute for the square root of two (1.414…) as a valid way to view the puzzle; then all the multiplication is correct and.the answer is 81. Thank you for reaching out.
81 for me too
Same calculation i used except that i added 33x33 to make it 6x6, to get 36.
I got to 36 in about 15 seconds of staring at it without any of the complicated explanations in the video
Same. It seemed pretty obvious to me without even going through any of that.
same
well 36 is wrong
same
@@auneakeffect the video disagrees
11×11=121 : 1+2+1=4
22×22=484: 4+8+4=16
33×33=1089: 1+0+8+9=18
I mean...why not?
That's what I did!
11x11=4 Wrong answer
22x22=16 Wrong answer
33x33=1089 Correct answer
because by the logic of adding at the end
11x11 could = 1+2+1=4, 12+1=13, 1+21=22
and so on for 22x22 and 33x33.
where as adding at the start leads to only 1 logical answer.
I got 36 because
1+1 = 2
2x2 = 4
2+2 =4
4x4=16
3+3 = 6
6x6=36
I did that!
81. If you multiply 1x1 in both sides, you are left with 2x2, which equals 4. If you multiply 2x2 in both sides, you are left with 4x4, which equals 16. If you multiple 3x3 in both sides, you are left with 9x9, which equals 81. That’s what I got.
1x1=1, I think you meant to say adding 1+1 and 2+2, where 3+3 would leave you with 6x6=36
Both answers were correct and we can come up with many more correct answers for this one. There is absolutely no reason to try to figure out which answer is "more correct" as there is no such thing.
I would disagree in that often when you have two 'correct' answers one is usually better than the other in some way, in this case however I'd judge it is about dead even, so there is a conundrum.
Any answer can be correct. The trick is to find an explanation for it.
@@Jester123ish There are more than two correct answers. No fewer than four have been presented in this thread.
Some puzzles like this excludes the ambiguity by giving a different pattern, but you still need to figure the logic behind it to solve, that way it doesn't have the ambiguity like this. I came up with the first solution which was "wrong" and the sequence matches, I kept wondering, why is it wrong? given the examples it shouldn't be wrong, it should just be different, there's no other information. There's an app called "Math Riddles" with lots of puzzles like this, some can be very tricky to solve but they make sure to exclude different answers with proper sequences.
I did a different process and got an answer of 64.
There are 4 "1's" so 4^1 = 4
There are 4 "2's" so 4^2 = 16
There are 4 "3's" so 4^3 = 64
John problem is that if you do that method you have to do 1^4 to indicate there are four ones. The way you have is saying there is one four
@@glitzyx4x852 it doesn't really matter it's still a valid method
My answer is almost like yours. I figured that:
11x11 stands for "1", hence 4^1=4
22x22 stands for "2", hence 4^2=16
33x33 stands for "3", hence 4^3=64.
Doesn't really hold though. If there are four 1s, it would be 1+1+1+1 = 4. Four 2s would be 8. Four 3s would be 12. This doesn't account for the multiplication in the pattern, though, so it can't be that.
If you were going by power, it wouldn't be 4^1. It would be 1^4, which is 1. 2^4 is 16. 3^4 is 81, but the pattern already doesn't match.
Going solely on the pattern, (1+1) x (1+1) = 4. (2+2) x (2+2) = 16. Therefore, by the logic, (3+3) x (3+x3) = 36.
@@Playhouse76.
It can be this answer, since it works for both examples showed.
All that a valid answer needs to do, is to show a way to get 11 × 11 to equal 4. Use the same method to get 22 × 22 to equal 16, and then use that to answer 33 × 33.
Also, the way I got 64, was to do the number of digits to the power of the average of those digits.
11 × 11 has 4 digits. The average of those digits is 1, so the answer would be 4¹ which equals 4.
22 × 22 has 4 digits. The average of those digits is 2, so the answer would be 4² which equals 16.
33 × 33 has 4 digits. The average of those digits is 3, so the answer would be 4³ which equals 64.
This method is also valid, since it works for both of the examples shown before 33 × 33.
So, 64, 18 and 36 are all valid answers, and there are many more.
So, it does hold, it just depends on how you word it.
The answer is actually 42 since it’s the answer to everything
True
Nah bro Jesus is the answer for everything
No it’s 43
Nah i think you mean 420
Ayy yoo Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy reference 👉😎👉
It‘s nonsense to deal with such kind if questions. It’s mathematically provable that there are infinitely many ”solutions“.
It really needs to give you the result of 44x44 so that you can confirm your method. It feels a bit vague. I did get 36 by just adding up each side first then multiplying.
Yes, I did same. Also if you square each number first and add them together, it equals 36 too.
11x11=4. Except it really equals 121. To get 4 from 11x11, divide the original product by 30.25.
22x22= 484/30.25=16.
So 33x33= 1089/30.25=36.
this is what im thinking
My dude same thinking 😁
I figured it out in ten seconds or so, practically by accident. I just looked for a pattern and did...
1+1+1+1x1 =4
2+2+2+2x2= 16
3+3+3+3x3= 36
Edit: forget the whole bit in brackets thing - you get what I mean
Thats what I did too 😂
What's the significance of 30,25?
If if this is a measure of genius these days, we are screwed!!!
Dougie H lol according to this video I’m a genius 😂
It's relatively simple...
It's not testing how you do the math or which answer is 'right', it's testing how you see and think about the problem. It's not a math test, it's an IQ test -- your answer shows which pattern you see, which tells the tester how you think.
Its not genius. Such idiotic puzzles end up in Indian competitive exams to fool students and waste time of students. for 90% of exams both options 18 and 36 will be available and to reduce the marks. Often in competitve exams correct answer will be set as 18. Actually such questions are to be banned because they will not ask us to count the dots and one cannot imagine whats in the examiners head. Actually for me I would like to take 33 Rs 33 times from examinaer and give him only 18 Rs(not even 36) Because it is correct for him according to his equality. Then only those bastard paper setters will stop giving such idiotic questions.
Yes, I did get to 36. I added the sum of the digits in each equation, then multiplied by the digit used in each equation.
(1+1) + (1+1) x 1=4, or (2 + 2) x 1=4, or 4 x1+4.
(2+2) + (2+2) x 2=16, or (4+4) x 2=16, or 8 x 2=16.
(3+3) + (3+3) x 3=36, or (6+6) x 3=36, or 12 x 3=36.
Exactly what I did.
I got 81. The figured the double digits on each side really represented “# squared”, meaning (X * X)(X * X), where X was the shown number.
So basically:
11 = 2
22 = 4
33 = 9
2*2 = 4
4*4 = 16
9*9 = 81
EDIT: I goofed. I had realized about an hour after posting that 1*1 would still equal 1, but kept forgetting to make this edit to mention that until now.
1*1=1 not 2 lmao
@@idk-qt4jy I actually realized that about an hour after posting this but kept forgetting to edit the post to mention that. Until now anyway.
@@killercore007 so the logic is wrong then
It’s not (Y × Y) × (Y × Y), its (Y + Y) × (Y + Y)
@@DarkLordSpike69
Hay wrf
it could just as arbitrarily be 4^a, for any function of aa x aa... given that we've established that we're not calculating the functions literally.
I did exactly that. Because i typically ignore those equations anyway, because they are inherently wrong.
Exactly like there is no reason to not say this is the correct answer
to determine the right Answer we would need a 3rd example for 44 x 44 = ___.
That's the kind of thing that gets views, creating multiple solutions deliberately and imply there's only one solution, only "genius" gets them correct. So people would argue that they are correct and ask people to support them, thus sharing it with others, getting viral.
In fact, true genius doesn't even care.
am I the only one who thought
"hmmm.. and what if 11 , 22, 33 are actually variables" and got 64 as an answer?
Yep. You’re the only one
No, you're not - Treating the left hand side as the value the four on the right hand side should be raised makes as much sense (in fact, to me it makes more sense, because it transforms the problem from a mathematical calculation problem (where the puzzle asker is cheating by withholding pertinent information, which not only makes the puzzle harder, but also ensures the solver cannot verify they have actually solved it) to a logical problem where only misdirection is used, which is a valid tactic in making puzzles more difficult)
Ok, but wouldn't 256 also be a valid answer to the third line/equation then?
We seem to be assuming there is some kind of relationship between the right-hand expressions. Assuming yet another quadratic relationship is as reasonable as the factor 4...
36 would be another possibility if we're instead assuming relationships between the left-hand side variable values
I got 64 as well.i used the recurring number (aka 3) as the power of 4
@@smallerabyss662 Yeah, that's what my brain did first too
This is no mathematical problem. It’s just logic pattern solving, commonly seen in intelligence tests. It takes seconds t solve if you’ve seen similar problems before.
Wow, with my weird logic, I though it was 64.
Flora no, I’m with you here. Because no function was specified and all of these equations are false equivalencies, I got the two answers he talks about, but assuming the false equivalencies just account as arbitrary place holders, we’d just follow another assumed function. So I got all three, 18, 36, and 64.
I also got 64 but from 4^3 lmao my logic
me too
Lmao same I multiplied the number that was supposed to make it by 2
It's not weird, I got 2 answers 36 and 64, bot are correct depending on how you look at it. They may even be more correct answers.
I thought It was “256” since
First answer is “4”
I thought that “4x4=16”
So then “16x16=256”
Me to
Same here
@@mackattack1297 Yea i had 256 and 36 but i was 99% sure it was 36 lol only becuse 256 seemed to easy..However when you have mulitiable plausable answere it really up to each and every mind to find a logically build up and every answere is plausable since you dont have any giving answere!!
Not really. This first looks to be 4 to the power of 1 which is 4; the second is then 4 to the power of 2 (4 squared) which is 16, so the third should logically be 4 to the power of 3(4 cubed), which is 64. I agree that there is not enough information to guarantee any of the answers being correct as ALL are subject to interpretation. I wonder what the answer would be if one applied a Fibonacci progression to the equations....but then I was judged to be a genius many years ago and am probably too old for the conversation
Yup
Or you could go with the argument "this math is BS anyways, you never explained the rules so I'll just make up my own. How about 666 for an answer? And now you have to explain to me how I derived it".
Nobody would ever call this "math", or even a math puzzle. This beyond silly.
Really, it needs at least one more line in order to allow people to determine which it's going to be. Both of the proposed solutions violate the normal rules for doing math without introducing an appropriate operator to do so. The real answer is that these are all inequalities.
I don't know why you think it's up to other people to try and explain your ignorance and how you "derived" it.
The video wasn't trying to argue that this is a strict and rigid mathematical proof or function. I think most people understand it's meant to be a fun puzzle designed to spark creativity and insight in the reader through pattern recognition and inductive reasoning.
My guess is that you're so jaded and cynical, having lost any imagination or creative spark you once had, it upsets you that there are people out there that can still find enjoyment in outlets such as this. Because of your frustration at yourself, and at the world, you need to try and suck the fun away from others, or try to make others feel bad for enjoying something.
I think if you spent more time encouraging others to be creative, instead of stifling the fun, you might just remember what it's like to feel like a human again :)
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Thank you for educating us all on the basic mathematical operators that we all learnt in primary school.
If it wasn't for your comment I'm sure myself, and many others, would have never even realised the conventional mathematic rules that this puzzle breaks.
For a second though, do you think it's possible that that's the way the puzzle was designed? That maybe the intention was to get people to look at a normal every day maths problem, and find creative and unconventional ways of solving it.
You also mention that you would have liked the creator of the puzzle to provide more datapoints; would you also like them to just define the function for you so you don't have to think at all? Also, the issue with providing more data points is that it actually arbitrarily restricts the readers ability to solve the problem in a novel manner. Encouraging the reader, or different readers, to come to different conclusions leads to comparisons and discourse around the solutions, with the realisation that no single solution is the only valid or "correct" one. Even if the original author came out and revealed what the 'canon' solution was, it would make any of the alternative solutions that were valid for the defined data points, any more or any less correct.
Maybe you are devoid of any ingenuity, but don't try and suck the fun away from others just because you can't think outside the box :)
@@siliconbased6555 damn why so angry?
Using the formula "mod(aa*aa, 117)" also works, giving 36 as well. Not worth much, but as a function to use on the left side to get the answer, this is the best I could come up with.
all this means is that there wasn't enough information for there to be a definate answer :(
which is why i'm getting tired of this channel!
These viral puzzles seldom conform to how mathematics is to be formulated. If you ignore the rules of the system, without even stating what or how much you're removing, there can't be any correct answer, since anything could have been ignored.
@Snivader
I totally get tired of these kinds of videos aswell, but it's just that he does occasionally have a very fun challenge, so I can't just stop watching without missing out ;-;
Well put SmileyMPV.
This channel is about 15% things I find pretty fascinating, 50% boring stuff, and 35% things that actually piss me off with their inanity and click-bait qualities. This is definitely among the third type of videos.
But it's hard to ignore that 15%.
It is about 15% fascinating, 55% boring, and 35% error. Oh, and another 10% ambiguous.
When the information is low, any result could be right. Like 18, 64, 36 and so on. We need more information so that we can find the relation of question. We can't find the right relation only by knowing 2 samples.
I hope everybody understand that with the right computation, any number could be a solution
Thank you. I come up with 64 by multiplying the two results and ignoring the problems.
@@rondatepfer3195 That’s what I got too, 4x4=16 , 16x4=64
@James Mills here, you have f(X) = Y
you have 2 couples f(11)=4 and f(22)=16..
Picture the graph of the function f(x) .
How many function f do you think can exist that include the two points (11;4) and (22; 16) ?
Give me any number C as the solution : f(33)=C.
I can even give you several (there's a little less than infinity^infinity) function where f(11)=4, f(22)=16 and f(33)= C
@James Mills I don't understand your point. I'm telling you : give me a solution, I'll give you a method. For instance I'll give you a 2nd degree function...
You want the solution to be 10 ?
the function is : (-9/121)x² + (39/11)x -26
You want the solution to be 36 ?
the function is : (4/121)x²
You want the solution to be 2021 ?
the function is : (1993/242)x² - (5955/22)x +1985
It's easy to find a 2nd degree polynomial that goes through 3 points
I was going with a pattern sequence and got 12.
It is FAR simpler than described. Simply add the digits either side of the multiplication sign before multiplying.
11= 1+1 = 2. 2 x 2 = 4.
22 = 2+2 = 4. 4 x 4 = 16.
33 = 3+3 = 6. 6 x 6 = 36.
“Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.”
That is just to give another path to the interested ones!
I can't remember who first said it, but it doesn't make it less true: "If you can't explain it to a five-year-old, you probably don't understand it, yourself." I thought that went very well with your "making complex ideas simple" statement quite nicely.
@@dharvell - I think it was Einstein that said if you can't explain it to your grandmother...
@@Snarkapotamus I wonder if that's where the quote I heard evolved from. I specifically remember the quote I heard referencing explaining something to a five-year-old... but the Einstein quote is probably where the quote I heard originated from.
Well said!
We could think that 11x11=121 and the sum of digits is 4, 22x22=484, the sum is 16, so 33x33 the sum of digits is 18
Same
I got the same result. The author of the puzzle has overcomplicated the answer.
Did you even watch the video?
Correct ... The sum of the digits is 18 not 36. To come to the posters conclusion he would have needed to show 3 examples and then asked to calculate the fourth.
@@man4mar the question only gives two examples, it's a faulty question. You cannot determine the exact answer since there is not enough info.
The second you find any correlation or pattern between the first two answers you can find any answer for the last equation and technically be correct. It’s way too open for interpretation.
Exactly. Dumbass question.
This was actually pretty easy tbh. Solved it before even clicking
I also came up with 36, but I got there through a different route. When I first saw the problem, I noticed that the first two answers given were both "square" numbers. I then noticed that if you take the total number of groups of 11 in each equation (excluding the answer) and then square that number, you get the answer given:
11 x 11: A total of 2 groups of 11. 2 x 2 = 4.
22 x 22: A total of 4 groups of 11. 4 x 4 = 16.
So, assuming that this is the pattern intended: 33 x 33 has a total of 6 groups of 11. 6 x 6 = 36.
I did the same lol. High five 😂
Basically I took 11 as 2 and from there it was a smooth sail.
same here I guess im a genius
i took 11x11 common.
33x33=(11x11)x9;
as 11x11=4,
33x33=4x9=36
Best example of Simple thing made unnecessarily complicated.😵😵🤔🤔 😡👽✍️🤸🧐
@@biswanathbera1260 It is simpler than it looks. 11x11=4;
33x33 = 9x(11x11) = 9x4 = 36
What about sum of all digits multiplied by the digit.
( 1+ 1 +1 +1) *1 =4
( 2+ 2 +2 +2) *2 =16
( 3+ 3 +3 +3) *3 =36
That's how I did it too! :)
It´s my way too.
its also the squares of the sequence of even numbers
I did it this way only
I've considered 11 as ''x'' so 22 becomes 2x and 33 becomes 3x. On condition x.x=x²=4, x is 2. By the way same things works for 2x. So 9x²=9.4=36
-2 is a solution for x too
And u said 11 is equal to x as well 😂
@@atharshansakthivel7647 in this question 11 is considered as an unknown element. İf x were equal to 11, would 11.11 equal to 4? :)
@@gbpekalp you are right but eventually the answer is 36 :D
Expected 😂... still u cant assume x equals to both 11 and 4
you can also add up every individual digit in the calculation and then square it to give you the same products
for 11x11, its (1+1+1+1) * 1 = 4
for 22x22, its (2+2+2+2) * 2 = 16
for 33x33, its (3+3+3+3) * 3 = 36
Here's another possibility: 144.
(1!+1!) x (1!+1!) = 4
Even I have another possibility:
11 x 11 = 4¹ = 4
22 x 22 = 4² = 16
33 x 33 = 4³ = 64🤩
@@sohailsiddiqui2961 that's absurd...You're not using all the given data(like even though it feels like you're using all 1's in 1st line,you're not making use of all 2's and 3's in rest 2 lines)
Awesome
@@sohailsiddiqui2961 I also thought the same
It would be meaningful (in future) for these ill-defined problems is to come up with as many POSSIBLE answers (with proper reasoning)...... rather than only one correct answer. That is lateral thinking and logic.
I came up with the correct answer in seconds by looking at thumbnails. The rest is just tangent setup making it unnecessarily complicated
Yah me too
Me too
For a given value of "correct".
I did :
11x11 = 4
22x22 = 16
found a pattern
1+1+1+1x1 = 4
2+2+2+2x2 = 16
3+3+3+3x3 = 36
was confused when he said that his method was THE correct answer
Well, I have done it differently,
11*11=1 raise to 4
22*22=2 raise to 4
33*33=3 raise to 4 which is 81
1^4=1 genius
that is how i did it. nice to see someone who got the same answer.
Also did it the same way
Same for me. Guess we are idiots
@@jksponga indeed you are
Another possibility is that "x" is a bilinear form, i.e. for a,b,c,d in R, (ab)x(c+d)=a*(bx(c+d))=a*((bxc)+(bxd)) and (a+b)x(cd)=((axc)+(bxc))*d.
Then we have 22x22=(2*11)x(2*11)=2*2*(11x11)=4*4=16 and 33x33=(3*11)x(3*11)=3*3*(11x11)=9*4=36.
This only provides us with solutions for terms of the form axa, so I think the fact that the author of the puzzle asks for such a term lends credibility to this explanation.
I looked at this for like 10 seconds and figured it was 256(square previous number), 64 (cube 4), or 28 (add 12)
I did the same as you! Old maths = logic! 🙂
Same here...
I didi it the same way ...to me .. is not about math .. is about logic process ...11x11 , 2x2 , 3x3 just tells me .. the numbers are multiplying by themselves .. maybe I am wrong but that is why every head is different.
I did it this way was well 😊
Me too
the = doesn't stand for equal, so every mathematically correct answer through an indirect route is correct
Thanks Will Smith
what? why will smith
because profile pic
In this problem = can stand for equals and still work. The problem would be with "X" call it corss, cross often is used to mean normal multiplication, but it doesnt have to mean multiplication. We can define it to be any binary operation on some set, meaning it takes two elements of the set and "crosses" them with each other to produce a third element. So here we can have = function as an equals sign and X be defined as a binary operation that takes two elements of the set, multiplies them together then takes the sum of their digits in base 10.
= is always equals, but we can define other operations to be what ever we want, although the puzzle its self is fairly trivial, the structure it creates under this binary operation is quite interesting.
Marcel Holt 36
There could literally be many answers to this puzzle
Exactly. It could also be 4 to the power of the repeated digit, which would give 64. Edit: thanks to A. Raghavan for pointing out my error.
PrinceofRain Actually not because it does not work for 11 x 11
11 × 11 = 4
(1! + 1!)(1! + 1!) = 4
22 × 22 = 16
(2! + 2!)(2! + 2!) = 16
33 × 33 = ?
(3! + 3!)(3! + 3!) = 144
11 * 11 = 4
1((√1 + √1)²) = 4
22 * 22 = 16
2((√2 + √2 )²) = 16
33 * 33 = ?
3((√3 + √3 )²) = 36
@@benzarrosales3597 2 + 2*2 + 2 = 12
"Forest/Trees"
I arrived at 36 in a much, much simpler and faster way. I simply multiplied the sum of the digits by the "common" number on the left of the equation. More of a pattern approach, I suppose.
4 X 1 = 4
8 X 2 = 16
12 X 3 =36
I was surprised to see all the fuss. "Over thinking it" came to mind. I enjoy your channel. Thanks.
I did the same 😊
that's way i did it
1 x (1+1+1+1) = 4
2 x (2+2+2+2) = 16
3 x (3+3+3+3) = 36
thats what i got
me to
me too
Same I got that
Yep.
The problem is that as long as you can use logical to back up your answer, there's many correct answers.
except this is internet and we must correct other peoples logics and oppinion. ergo, your opinion is bad abd you should feel bad.
Many correct answers.
As this attempt at humor illustrates:
"What is worse than biting into an apple and finding a worm?"
"Biting into an apple and find one half of a worm."
-or- falling on the ice while walking to work in a two acre parking lot in a Sunbelt State that has no ice or snow removal equipment and all the ambulances are busy with other emergencies, and realizing that you forgot to pack an apple in your lunch that day, and getting lost because your car is covered in ice and all the cars look the same...
Otherwise, a wormy apple is better than a few other mishaps.
thanks for the laugh andrew. i've never heard that apple joke before. i'll be sure to share it.
ive Herd it
Aubrey Edwards stfu
I got 18. But it really depends on what your "x" operator means in the first place. If you see "x" as the usual "times" operator than 11x11=4 is false. So, given the false statement, any answer will be correct. If the "x" operator means first multiply, then sum each digit, then my answer is correct. There is no debate about this kind of open ended questions.
just do it simply 11x11=4 so multiplying 9 both side gives= 33x33=36!
We can also say its 64 by saying it's just 4¹ in the first 4² in second so will be 4³ in the third
These problems are a mess and don't prove much of anything it's just a quick aptitude test with no results
My daughter saw it the same way
pensé que era así
It might besquare root of 16 because 4²=16
That's immediately the way I saw the solution.
I got the answer as 64 as well but in a different way
Based on logic, I got 256, since 4 multiplied by itself (i.e., 4x4) yielded 16, through which you would then infer that the next number SEQUENTIALLY should be 16 multiplied by itself (i.e., 16x16) thereby resulting in the number "256".
I thought the answer should be 64 or 81, but the problem is 1x1x1x1 is just 1..
I got this too
Yes I got that too. But then I realized that it is no good. The problem is that you ignore what is at the left side of the = sign, and basically retrieve the answer only from the right side numbers.
Or, put differently: you get into problems when asked for the value of 12 x 11, or 12 x 21.
i thought it was 4^3 which was 64
Anyone think it was 64
LlamaNeck me
Here the one
Me
Me
me
Taking a quick look without watching. I decided after considering various exponential and base changes that a plus sign between Integers gives the answer 36. So 1 + 1 × 1 + 1 = 4 and 2 + 2 × 2 + 2 = 16 hence 3 + 3 × 3 + 3 = 36.
maybe this is another way:
11x11=4 (4^1=4)
22x22=16 (4^2=16)
33x33=? (4^3=64)
I thought so too.
Yes i thought that too, because there’s 4 1s so 4 power 1 etc.
maybe this is another way :
11x11=4
(11x11)=4
remember this
33x33
=3x11x3x11
=3x3x(11x11)
=3x3x(4)
=36
∴33x33=36
@@JeffreyY021 This is actually more logical rather than the anomalous decomposition of two digits shown here.
maybe (1+1)*(1+1) = 4
(2+2)*(2+2)=16
(3+3)*(3+3)=81
Different calculations, reply if correct please.
11x11=4. (1+1)x(1+1)=4
22x22=16. (2+2)x(2+2)=16
33x33=? (3+3)x(3+3)=36
44x44=? (4+4)x(4+4)=64
Etc. Etc.
Yes, this also represents an even square pattern.
And even then, we can write 66x66 as 12^2, or 88x88 as 16^2.
+Liam Frowijn
11x11=4
22x22=16
33x33=64
explanation:
4 is the result of 4^1, and the operation which result is 4 is 11*x*11
16 is the result of 4^2, and the operation which result is 16 is 22*x*22
64 is the result of 4^3, and the operation which result is 64 is 33*x*33
;) that logic can be true too :P and yours is right, :D no problem with it
ReDJstone Smash That can also represent "powers of 4" pattern, but many people may not see it this way.
We can also write 55 x 55 as 4^5 (1024) and 77 x 77 as 4^7 (16,384)
PurpleKingCrazy ... and what did i say? i didnt put more examples because in the vid the question is 33x33, but you dont have to repeat what i said xD
I didn't watch the video but i think it's:
11*11=121 -> 1+2+1=4;
22*22=484 -> 4+8+4=16;
33*33=1089 -> 1+0+8+9=18;
44*44=1936 -> 1+9+3+6=19;
...
I got this 36 in about 30 seconds looking at it..
Add all the 1's up (=4) then multiply by 1 = 4
Add all the 2's up (=8) then multiply by 2 = 16
Add all the 3's up (=12) then multiply by 3 = 36
That's the patten I saw..
Same 😂
I made it into algebra changing 11 as a, so 22 is 2a, 33 is 3a 😳 is this correct? I feel genius
I did the same thing 👍
Add plus signs in-between each digit, like this: 11 x 11 ---> (1 + 1) x (1 + 1) = 2 x 2 = 4. Doing so with 33 x 33 is 36. (3 + 3) x (3 + 3) = 6 x 6 = 36
11x11=4
-> (1+1+1+1)x1 = 4
22x22=16
-> (2+2+2+2)x2 = 16
33x33 = ?
-> (3+3+3+3)x3 = 12x3 = 36
It was a little ridiculous
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought like this
I did (1+1)x(1+1)
(2+2)*(2+2)
(3+3)*(3+3)
Same as you but written differently.
@@MrChompenrage same here buddy. always trying to make things simple
the correct answer is 1089 with "=" being changed to "≠" for the first 2 equations.
These are the most annoying answers/comments to these videos. They are on every video like these. It's basically the equivalent of commenting on a video and correcting its grammar by saying something like "*they're". We get it. You outsmarted the video and called it out on a technicality, even though it is obvious the guy who made the video already knows this and the puzzle is just using the equals sign to keep it simple to read for everyone.
Thank you.
lol
That is one way to solve the puzzle, because it is not a math problem, per se; it is a number puzzle. And it can have several seemingly correct answers. However, because the first two equations are false, and there are several ways to 'solve' the puzzle, only the developer will know the correct answer. But I think adding the 'not equal' sign is elegant, and shows thought. I see quite a few 'correct' answers that can make sense, and can be defended.
I got 36, 64 or 81. I got 36 by adding the digits together like he did. I got 64 because 4 squared is 16 which could make sense since 16’s line is all 2’s. By this logic 4 cubed is 64. I got 81 by adding the first par of digits, for example 1+1 is 2, then squaring those added digits ,since they exist in pairs of 2, so you would get; (1+1)^2=4, (2+2)^2=16, and (3+3)^2=81.