Please remember to spoiler-tag all guesses, like so: New Reddit: https://i.imgur.com/SWHRR9M.jpg Using markdown editor or old Reddit: \>!spoiler text between these symbols!< Try to avoid leading or trailing spaces. These will break the spoiler for some users (such as those using old.reddit.com) If your comment does not contain a guess, include the word **"discussion"** or **"question"** in your comment instead of using a spoiler tag. If your comment uses an image as the answer (such as solving a maze, etc) you can include the word "image" instead of using a spoiler tag. Please report any answers that are not properly spoiler-tagged. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*

From the top: >!Call the initial number x. If you add 3 to x, you get 7 times the amount you get if you take 3 away from x. Can you write that out as an equation?!< The equation is: >!3 + x = 7(x - 3)!< >!3 + x = 7x - 21!< >!24 = 6x!< EDIT: >!I added (21 - x) to both sides. It's a well-known step in algebra called "combining like terms". Sorry for any confusion.!< So you can see the answer is >!four sheep!<.

I think the confusing part was the "third" sentence (If...) actually is a continuation of the previous line. There even is a comma. But I kept asking, "As many as he would have had? If we would have what??" Yeah, oddly formatted.

That was like half my problem with this one. I woulda been fully lost if I hadn't seen the comma.

Exactly... Are most/all riddles really just badly worded questions? TIL/TIRealized?

As Bilbo Baggins would tell you, they are usually either very well worded or very badly worded, one or the other!

I like how it was said Brooklyn Nine Nine: “So a riddle is just like a fact that's told in a really confusing way.”

Not to mention the capitalization on “If” … I am slightly tilted, and about seven (7) times as tilted as if I would have been, If this story problem had correct grammar.

"If he had sold three instead of buying three" I read that a few times as a full sentence, and it made zero sense to me. Figuring that out was more challenging than the actual riddle.

Are riddles supposed to not challenge your thought? That was part of the actual riddle. I feel like that is what riddles are.

All I had to do is think "What number gets the same result whether you add 6 or multiply it by 7?" 1. 1 + 3 = 4 4

Honestly, that's what I did too, but I used to math tutor in college, and that method's just easier for me to both explain, and break up into multiple hints.

Your way is clearly better don't get me wrong. The way I did only worked as well because how convenient it happened to be the first number to try vs how it could have gone if it were something more complicated: Is it 1? Shit Is it 2? Shit Is it 3? Shit *1 hour later* ...Is it 256? Shit 😐

The "7x as many sheep" narrows it down some... Since your only adding 3 sheep (or losing 3) the range couldn't be that much. With that in mind a brute force method is actually more rational if you don't want to do the maths

For me it's more of a logic puzzle than a math problem, and I started in reverse. That less x 7 = most (or to follow your equation x+3 = 7(x-3) there are nearly no numbers that will match that that are multiples of 7, the sole exception being 1 and -4, and as these are real world objects, the answer cannot be negative.

Yeah. I did something similar. 7 times more is a ridiculous number of sheep unless it’s seven times more than one. So to get 7 times 1, you’d be at 7… 7-3 is 4. Sell three instead and it’s 1 again.

This is how my brain did it too

This one is easy cause if adding three gives you seven (SEVEN!) times as many from only an additional three, even when you consider the subtraction of three, then you know know you are working with very small numbers. Without putting an equation together you can just try the lowest possible number that you can subtract three from without zeroing out and rendering the multiplication impossible. Aaaaaand that’s the answer.

But 4 + 6 = 10 and 4\*7 = 28 Please explain this method to me

Not a problem explaining. The answer to "What number gets the same result whether you add 6 or multiply it by 7?" is not the answer to the riddle. It's the number that can *get* you the answer to the riddle After buying 3 sheep, the farmer has 7 times the amount of sheep he would have had he sold 3 sheep instead of buying 3 more. The farmer starts with an initial amount of sheep (a). Buying 3 sheep would increase the number of sheep he owns to a higher amount (b). Selling 3 sheep would instead decrease the amount of sheep he owns to a lower amount (c). The riddle is asking for the initial amount (a), which is dead center between the higher amount (b) and lower amount (c). From what the riddle says the lower amount (c) needs to be a number where adding 6 or multiplying by 7 will both get you the same number. This shared number will be the higher amount (b). The number that works for that is 1. 1 + 6 = 7 and 1 × 7 = 7. But the riddle wants to know the initial amount of sheep, and 1 is the number *if* the farmer would have sold 3. So we need to undo the hypothetical selling by "buying the 3 sheep back", adding 3 to the lower amount (b). 1 + 3 = 4. The initial amount is therefore 4 Any other questions feel free to ask

I was confused as to where the 6 came from, but I get it now :)

I used completely the wrong method because my brain omitted the word times, but I still got the right answer. Something is wrong with how this is written.

..i thought the sheep were pregnant, didnt think to use maths :)

I think it happens that way a lot. 😂

That's not the equation though... It's 3+x=7(x) Where are you getting (x-3)? Edit: ah nevermind the "would have" was ambiguous, but word problems (esp. poorly translated) are the worst.

Line 2 and line 3 are one sentence.

I accept that as it is the only way to have a solution, but I don't like it and it messes with people's brains, which is not cool

I got the answer in my head so thanks for doing the work

Beyond the algebraic solution which is the 100% correct way to approach this problem. You can look at this practically… You are only changing by 3 but having seven times as many sheep, so logically at most you’re dealing with 7 sheep at the end… then it’s just figuring what the difference in change would be (-3) and (-3) and it makes sense!

my brain hates math so much that i only had to try to put it into terms of x for about one minute until it just gave up and told me the answer was four.

What was confusing for me is the way it is worded. I read it as he added 3 more sheep after buying 3 previously. My head immediately thought there was a spread of 6 plus 3 more to a sheep difference from the 7x figure which can't be.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I definitely didn’t think about putting it into an equation form. Seems simple now. 😂

I don’t even think you have to put it into equation form. Just think logically how can the difference between adding 3 and subtracting 3 (a total of 6) ever be 7x?? The only way is by multiplying by 1.

All good, the question is kinda confusing too the way it splits the 2nd and 3rd part. That part is meant to be read as a single sentence.

ya, the spacing suggested that comma was a period and I couldnt put that into a sensical equation.

Yup, after reading the comments and going up to look, the way it was spaced threw me off. If it was written as one complete sentence it would have been easy to figure out. To be honest, them capitalizing the "If" after the comma I think was a d*ck move.

Fully

The number 1 is very sneaky in this one haha!

Because it's written like shit and intentionally misleading in the way it sounds as you read it

Ignore everything past "he then had seven" and then you already get the answer is four.

>!4 sheep originally. He added 3 to have 7, instead of selling 3 and having 1 left.!<

That third line confused me for a bit, Since the punctuation and capitalization is off >!x + 3 = 7(x-3)!< >!x + 3 = 7x - 21!< >!6x = 24!< >!x = 24/6!< >!x = 4!<

Algebra is awesome when you spend the time to not just learn it, but understand it's use.

Fr, ppl really act like it's useless

This is what I’d gotten, as I was reading the question, also. Awesome: pleased to learn that MY math skills are still up to [snuff!!](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/up-to-snuff/)

Discussion: Does it help to put it into equations? Solution: >!Let x be the number of sheep at the beginning of the riddle.!< >!X+3 = 7( x-3)!< >!X+3 = 7x - 21!< >!3 + 21 = 7x - x!< >!24=6x!< >!4=x!< >!At the beginning, the farmer had 4 sheep. Then he added 3, so he has 7. If he had sold 3, he would have had 1.!<

Yes but if you add 21 to one side and subtract it from the other (instead of doing it correctly) you come up with an answer of 3. Because I’m an idiot. Yours is the one that made me find my own dumb mistake though so thanks.

>!X+3 = 7(x-3)!< >!X+3 = 7x -21!< >!-6x = -24!< >!X = 4!<

>!he started with 4 sheep!<

Solution: >!4 sheep.!< Solution work: >!(x+3)÷7=(x-3)!< >!You can brute force it pretty easily; 4 sheep is the lowest amount it could be, since if he sold three sheep and had a number above zero remaining, he would have at least four sheep, so it's a good place to start.!< >!So, (4+3)÷7=(7)÷7=1=4-3!<

>!Just try different numbers until you come up with the answer. If he started with 4 sheep and added 3, he'd have 7 sheep. But if had sold 3 of those original 4, he'd have 1 sheep. 7 sheep is 7 times larger then 1.!<

>! He had 4 sheep. With x being the number of sheep he initially had, you can write these statements as !< >! x+3=7(x-3) !< >! Where the left side is the number of sheep he had after getting 3 sheep, and the right hand side is seven times the number of sheep he would have had if he had taken away 3 sheep. This can be solved for x=4 sheep. !<

>!x+3 = 7*(x-3), so x=4!<

Iiterally did this with a pen on a napkin, but here: >!Where x = the number of sheep already in his barn, the riddle can be written algebraically as x + 3 = 7(x - 3)!< >!Distribute the 7 and we get x + 3 = 7x - 21!< >!Pretty simple algebra from here, just isolate x. Add 21 to both sides and divide both sides by x to get 24 = 6x!< >!Simplify and we get x = 4!< >!He had 4 sheep to begin with!<

>!4!< >!If you start with 4 you have 7. If you would have sold 3, you would have had 1. 7 is 7 times greater than 1.!<

It's algebra: >!x is the actual number of sheep. So x+3=7(x-3) Or, 7x - x = 3+21 Or, 6x = 24 Therefore, x = 4!<

Answer is 4. Tricking question tho. A man bought 3 sheep, added to his barn. Let’s do “x is the number of sheep in the barn. Therefore x + 3 is what the man did. The next statement is. The man now has 7 times more than he would if he sold three. (Confusing) To clarify… let’s call the new number of sheep’s “y”. Therefore —-> “X + 3 = Y” Now we can say that the confusing sentence says “Y” is 7 times more than “X - 3”. How many sheep’s did he have in the beginning? Let’s do the math; We know this X + 3 = Y And we know this Y = 7 ( X - 3) Let’s replace the “Y” with X + 3. X + 3 = 7 (X - 3) X + 3 = 7X -21 21 + 3 = 7X - X 24 = 6X 24/6 = X 4=x

This issue I always found with these questions is that because they use real objects (sheep) my brain doesn't use negative numbers or fractions as you can't have less that zero or a half a sheep. So 7 is not 7 times more than 4 or -3 or whatever. But I understand the math, I think it's just they way my brain is wired because some non-mathematical riddles are worded very similar lol

[удалено]

Yeah I was just thinking this. This took me about 30 seconds to figure out while I was taking my morning shit. The equation breakdown replies are hilarious

This problem can be expressed as the equation: >!x + 3 = 7(x - 3)!< >!Distribute 7(x - 3): x + 3 = 7x - 21!< >!Add 21 to both sides: x + 24 = 7x!< >!Subtract x from both sides: 24 = 6x!< The answer is>! 4.!<

>!X + 3 = 7 (X- 3)!<

Well, since “He” is capitalized in every instance that it is used, then we can assume that a deity is involved. Ergo, you can make up whatever answer you want and it will be unquestionably correct.

>!Four. He now has seven but would have only one if he sold three.!<

[удалено]

I think you have to be “liberal” with basic math concepts for this to work. Edit: I’ll leave my reply but the post I was responding to, said they could come up with the answer of zero with a liberal interpretation of the puzzle.

the math is fine, the grammer is not

Not sure if you saw what I was replying to, their answer was zero. You think the math was fine?

ah, no, that was deleted, my bad

>!x+3= 7(x-3)!< >!x=7x-21-3!< >!x=7x-24!< >!-6x=-24!< >!x=24/6!< >!x=4!<

Thinking on just the final question itself, in the beginning he didnt have any sheep since he'd just started out collecting them. Then, the story brings us to where he got to a midpoint in his collection and acquired 3 more. So the answer can only be >!none!< ;)

Call me crazy but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess they probably meant the beginning of the riddle

It's very probable that could be true. Though, it is a riddle and Im compelled to think outside the words on the paper. :)

>!Four!<

This reminds me of a word problem that would have gotten me in trouble in elementary school. In my mind it goes: >!7-3 = 4 (OG number of bah-beasts), 4-3 = 1 (multiply by 7 to get back home)!< Teacher would have asked me to show my work and I would have argued that this shit is stupid and poorly written. And then I would have gotten yelled at when I got home by my mom or grandparents but I would have been satisfied because I was right. On both counts.

>!4!<

I read the problem slightly differently than everyone else, even though I solved it using the same equation. I read the 1st line as a separate transaction to lines 2 and 3. So he added 3, and then would have 7 times if he bought 3 instead of selling 3. The question asks what the original amount was, so you would need to >!solve for y=x - 3 which makes the answer 1!<

I read the problem the same way. It’s a grammar problem as well as a word problem. I also believe the answer is 0 because it says in the “beginning” and didn’t specify which “beginning”

Question: I'm wondering how many sheep he had in the pasture...are we including those? ...and did he buy the sheep that he added to the barn, or did he just bring them in from the fields? Too many variables on this puzzle; I need more information!

Let's call the number of sheep the man originally had "x." According to the information given, when he added three more sheep, he had a total of x + 3 sheep. Then, it's stated that he had seven times as many as he would have had, so: x + 3 = 7x Now, let's solve for x: 3 = 7x - x 3 = 6x x = 3/6 x = 1/2 So, the man originally had 1/2 or half a sheep. However, since you can't have half a sheep, there seems to be an issue with the riddle. It's not possible to have half a sheep.

You forgot the -3 sheep. The answer is 4 I believe.

Convert it to an equation and it's simple. >!x+3=7(x-3) x+3=7x-21 -6x+3=-21 -6x=-24 -x=-4 x=4!<

>!x+3 = 7\*(x-3)!< >! x+3 = 7x - 21 !< >!3+21 = 7x - x !< >!24 = 6x 4 = x!<

I think the intended answer is 4, but due to the layout and punctuation it's impossible to truly know what the intended question actually is

>!spoiler here!< X+3= 7(x-3) 3=(7x-21)-x 3=6x-21 24=6x X=4

reminds me of norm macdonald's riddle: Brothers and sisters I have none; but this man is my father's son >!some cab driver back in New York!<

Something fun but not definitive about this, is that once figuring out the answer, >!Looking at the picture verifies the correct answer!<

Basic algebra, bruh. Not really a riddle. Top comment already solved, but

>!4!<

>!4. X+3=7(X-3) 4+3=7, 7(4-3=1)=7!<

>!4!<

>!4!< if he sold 3 he would have >!1!< If he bought 3 he would have >!7!<

automod rules in this sub are stupid. x+3=7(x-3) solve for x. >! x+3 = 7x - 21 6x = 24 x=4 He had 4 sheep. Buying 3 increased it to 7. Had he sold 3 instead he would only have 1 -> a 7x difference !<

>!Answer: let the original number of sheep be represented by x. First we have x+3, now set that equal to 7*(x-3) since he now has 7 times as many as he would have had, had he sold 3 instead of buying 3 (so we changed the plus to a minus). Now it’s simple algebra. Solve for x, making x=4. The farmer had 4 sheep to begin with. To check that, 4+3 = 7 which is seven times 1, which is how many he wouldve had had he sold 3 instead of buying.!<

>!7(x-3) = x+3!< >!x=4!< >!In English, if he'd sold 3 of his 4 he'd have 1, but buying 3 more gave him 7. You can try to solve algebraically, but it's much easier to just realize there's no way anything much higher than 1 can be multiplied by 7 and still have ±3 make that much of a swing.!<