Can You Solve The Viral 9 = 72 Puzzle? The Correct Answer Explained

This problem has been shared millions of times on Twitter/Facebook with the claim "99% fail" to solve it and that only a genius could find the correct answer. If 9 = 72, 8 = 56, 7 = 42, 6 = 30, 5 = 20, then 3 = ? In this video I explain what many people believe to be the correct answer. I also show how this answer is logical for other patterns seen in the puzzle.
Update Oct 2022: Everyone is talking about if 9=90, 8=72, then 3= answer puzzle. You can approach it in the same way as this video--the different methods will converge to the same answer with the "missing line" idea.
My blog post on this video (with links to sources)
wp.me/p6aMk-4Xq
If you like my videos, you can support me at Patreon:
/ mindyourdecisions
Connect on social media. I update each site when I have a new video or blog post, so you can follow me on whichever method is most convenient for you.
My Blog: mindyourdecisi...
Twitter: / preshtalwalkar
Facebook: / 168446714965
Google+: plus.google.co...
Pinterest: / preshtalwalkar
Tumblr: / preshtalwalkar
Instagram: / preshtalwalkar
Patreon: / mindyourdecisions
Newsletter (sent only for big news, like a new book release): eepurl.com/KvS0r
If you buy from the links below I may receive a commission for sales. This has no effect on the price for you.
My Books
"The Joy of Game Theory" shows how you can use math to out-think your competition. (rated 3.8/5 stars on 31 reviews)
amzn.to/1uQvA20
"The Irrationality Illusion: How To Make Smart Decisions And Overcome Bias" is a handbook that explains the many ways we are biased about decision-making and offers techniques to make smart decisions. (rated 5/5 stars on 2 reviews)
amzn.to/1o3FaAg
"Math Puzzles Volume 1" features classic brain teasers and riddles with complete solutions for problems in counting, geometry, probability, and game theory. Volume 1 is rated 4.4/5 stars on 13 reviews.
amzn.to/1GhUUSH
"Math Puzzles Volume 2" is a sequel book with more great problems. (rated 5/5 stars on 3 reviews)
amzn.to/1NKbyCs
"Math Puzzles Volume 3" is the third in the series. (rated 3.8/5 stars on 4 reviews)
amzn.to/1NKbGlp
"40 Paradoxes in Logic, Probability, and Game Theory" contains thought-provoking and counter-intuitive results. (rated 4.3/5 stars on 12 reviews)
amzn.to/1LOCI4U
"The Best Mental Math Tricks" teaches how you can look like a math genius by solving problems in your head (rated 4.7/5 stars on 4 reviews)
amzn.to/18maAdo
"Multiply Numbers By Drawing Lines" This book is a reference guide for my video that has over 1 million views on a geometric method to multiply numbers. (rated 5/5 stars on 3 reviews)
amzn.to/XRm7M4

[@MindYourDecisions]

4 million views...wow. Crazy to think this video is 6 years old. We've come a long way. Thanks to everyone that's supported MindYourDecisions. I will keep working hard to make interesting math videos.

[@sujatajena267]

Love you presh❤ for your efforts. Thanks to you bro for providing quality math problems.

[@jamesrehan9969]

Best math channel on youtube.

[@ernestofelipoperezprado7395]

You the goat man

[@Vishalkr12]

@@sujatajena267 When I saw Mind your decisions comment, i thought there must be an Indian who already have commented here. When I clicked on replies, I got you first 😊

[@flappyfloppy3048]

nice

[@kanklys8789]

Ok... Has anyone solved it just by seeing the video's thumbnail?

[@casualotaku5201]

Yep

[@Jon-pv8gr]

Yeah, it is easy.

[@larissalyle8952]

Kanklys yep

[@hananabdelhafeez4320]

Yup me

[@AxyDC]

Yup

[@znhait]

I am always bothered when the equal sign is abused in such a way.

[@spidermain]

They should use an arrow instead

[@arnavanand8037]

@Just no one like this 👉👌

[@1trucxhondamov589]

I like 3(47), so here's my 👍🤓

[@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297]

Mind your own damn decisions!

[@christianalbertjahns2577]

There's already a notation for that: function notation. And they still use equal sign. Preposterous

[@brianviktor8212]

There are 3 correct patterns, however only the first one (6) does not require a reference to other values, and is therefore the best answer as it's standalone and applicable to any value. The other two answers would fall apart the moment you move the last line a bit too far down, destroying the potential/deceptive appearance of a list.

[@bramvanduijn8086]

There is only one pattern, it is just written down in three different ways. a->a*(a-1) means exactly the same thing as decreasing multiplication. The same is true for decreasing subtraction it is just a bit harder to identify the relationship since you have reverse the order and to understand that multiplication is repeated addition. So going from 5 to 6 means adding 5 twice. Going from 6 to 7 means adding 6 twice. By doubling the number you are increasing the number the added value increases with by 2, because 1 doubled is 2.

[@intersection7353]

Yes

[@marbleWRKD]

@@bramvanduijn8086I solved it by the thumbnail

[@marbleWRKD]

For people who did not understand: So, based on ​⁠@@bramvanduijn8086’s variable, n=a*(a-1), 9=72 would be explained as 9*(9-1), or 9*8, which is 72. 8*(8-1) is 8*7=56. 7*(7-1) is 7*6=42. 6*(6-1) is 6*5=30. 5*(5-1) is 5*4=20. 4*(4-1) is 4*3=12. And finally, 3*(3-1) is 3*2=6. So *6 is* yes, *the answer.*

[@ShadowPhoenix4798]

@@bramvanduijn8086yes, the only reason there are multiple “correct” solutions is because term 4 is missing from the problem, and people can’t seem to understand that the number before 5-1 ≠ 3

[@exclibrion]

I did the decreasing substraction method and it was still 6. The reason why people say its 12 is because they miss the 4 between 5 and 3.

[@atharvadeshpande6907]

Precisely

[@youzhou3001]

Bro the last one is 6 too because of this, they miss the 4

[@Nothing-pg9qc]

@@youzhou3001 If you include the 4 all of the methods will give you 6

[@bagel7080]

I thought it was zero, because the first number got less and less and the second ones have to be something with 0. 72 56 42 30 20 00 I don’t know if I explained it well, English is not my first language.

[@hamzaleagueoflegends3144]

Also for the final méthode they miss the 4 between 5 and 3

[@blockyshapes7001]

2:34 they skipped 4, so this is how it should go below 5: 4 = 12 - 6 = 6 3 = 6

[@hadrougali494]

20-4×2=12 12-3×2=6

[@ComedyCapsule143]

6

[@youtubeaddictionplayz-gtan598]

BlockyShapes Indeed i knew that xD

[@ochacouraraka3080]

same with the decresing multiplication

[@alanconde1974]

BlockyShapes that’s why they are wrong

[@BlazeMakesGames]

Yeah the problem with the other two answers is that they're methods purely based on the right side of the equation and completely ignore the left side, and of course as you point out they skip the fact that there's a missing 4 in the equation. The whole point of a problem like this imo is that it shouldn't matter what the final line's input is, you're supposed to be coming up with a generalized formula so that theoretically you could solve any random input using the same patterns as the existing inputs and outputs. You could generalize the "decreasing subtraction" method for example to something like Y = f(X+1) - (X*2 - 2), which is technically a generalized solution but it still requires knowing the answer to an adjacent formula. (you could of course also solve it based on f(X-1) if you wanted to work upwards instead of down). And when phrased this way, it gets you the correct answer, but it's more complicated and not very practical since you *have* to solve F(4) before you can solve F(3). So basically yeah the first solution is clearly the best and most useful one because if we thought about this kind of problem in a practical context, you'd want to create a simple generalized formula that could be applied to any input regardless of any prior inputs and outputs. Like the other two methods don't work if you need to solve for say X = 10,000 or X = -57. Or at least it would take a ton of effort. Meanwhile with the simple Y = X * (X-1) solution you can solve for any input. You could probably read into the other two answers more and try to say things like "oh well this is just representative of how some people try to take shortcuts instead of doing things properly" but I dunno if I wanna have that argument lol.

[@digitlesmile2765]

Yeah like if you add that 4 every method will obviously give the same answer every time

[@Velaroz]

Here's the fun part. Those other answers might could have worked, if they remembered that 4 was a potential place in the schema that was otherwise skipped to in turn ask you what 3 was. 20-8=12 would be the correct answer for 4. Which then gets 12-6=6 for 3. The last one would've had 4x3 and then 3x2. Which means it looks just the same as the first subset anyway. Seeing it as (x)(x-1) was okay. Personally I would've just called it x^2 - x

[@MWalkah]

He makes the argument that the other answers could've worked if you insert the missing "4" line in the video.

[@RabblesTheBinx]

I mean x(x-1) and x²-x are equivalent statements (and, honestly, 9×8 is a shorter and faster problem than 9×9×-9), so...

[@martinprice69]

If the 4 was supposed to be part of the equation. There would be a question mark for the 4. But there isn't. The answer is 9.

[@Velaroz]

@@martinprice69 Right, obviously it not being included means that it obviously isn't meant to be in the set. But also not necessarily always the explicit case where only what is shown is included. I have seen some terribly implemented questions, be it from individual teachers, or from test-makers on things like the SAT. They implement stuff in a way that leaves room for some confusion or window of interpretation for how the question could be answered due to the written instructions on the test and how questions are written. This is often an issue because the questions for math are written by math teachers/professors, who sometimes drop the ball on ensuring full succinct clarity when it comes to language used. This is how you end up with some questions getting either multiple correct answers [if work was shown], or a question getting tossed entirely. This is normally only a question a year for things like the SAT, unless the ball got majorly dropped.

[@dimitrisk8441]

@@Velaroz me, it is actually very easy. I think that probably 99% of people succeed in finding the answer to this problem, but they turned it around for click baiting per usual 😄

[@stephthealmighty268]

The only thing hard understanding is why is this vid 8 mins long

[@montagemaster6388]

Stewie -• 😂

[@MonkeyWrench1]

Because he can't explain it well enough.

[@mamtashukla6593]

Absolutely

[@ElectroNeutrino]

Because ambiguously posed problems can have multiple valid solutions.

[@MisterHunterWolf]

So simple, y = x(x - 1). How does it take that long to explain that?

[@maxcross5454]

Pff, easy. 9=72 - false 8=56 - false 7=42 - false 6=30 - false 5=20 - false 3=3

[@ashtonplays2613]

!?!

[@7llininthedream]

What? No... You are trying to be smart. Just use times tables...

[@7llininthedream]

@@pavelgabrielioan I said, stop trying to be smart :)

[@yohansaldana8218]

@@7llininthedream Never say that,we are all made to be AWESOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Just let them get better,after all,the law of entropy doesn't refer to everything,and it's not always right. It was broken by even humans themselves.

[@parthsarathidixit5648]

But where is 4?

[@starstenaal527]

I've figured it's 6 by using the decreasing multiplication method, by adding the missing line of 4*3.

[@matthewq4b]

There is no missing line. you are ASSUMING there is a missing line..... You are to find the next line ONLY with the information provided. On that basis the answer is 9... You do not get to ADD stuff to make it fit YOUR desired answer...

[@starstenaal527]

@@matthewq4b mentally adding it, of course. The pattern was apparent from the previous 4 instances where the rule applies. Skipping a line would be a valid way of increasing the difficulty when designing a puzzle like this. The skip also only occurs at the last equation, where the answer is intentionally left blank, which further supports the theory.

[@matthewq4b]

@@starstenaal527 Nice try but you are ASSUMING a line was skipped. With NO supporting evidence. This another case of modifying a question to suit YOUR answer.. The correct answer for the information provided is three. Any other answers requires an assumption there is additional information missing. AGAIN you ARE assuming with ZERO indication that there is missing information. That is like saying 2+2=6 and then saying that another +2 is missing so the answer has to be 6. You do NOT modify questions to suit YOUR answer. With the information provided the answer is 3 plain and simple. ANYTHING else is an assumption...

[@starstenaal527]

@@matthewq4b In the examples provided, it's 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5. then the puzzle asks for 3. if you recognized the pattern, it is obvious that you have to go over 4 as well to comply with the GIVEN pattern. it is entirely possible that the puzzle creator wants you to do so. There is no information in the riddle that tells you to act as if you don't notice patterns. I have no idea what you mean with "modifying a question".

[@matthewq4b]

@@starstenaal527 WRONG you are ASSUMING there is 4 =. If the multiplier counts down 7 6 5 4 the next is 3, to equal 9 as is ACTUALY shown. There is NO 4=. other than the one YOU created. Again you are changing/ modifying the question to suit YOUR answer.. And not answering what is ACTUALLY shown.. Again you are taking question like 2+2 and saying the answer is 6 and assuming another +2 is missing.... There is ZERO indication ANY WHERE in the question that there is 4= line.

[@suhaschittavajhula8427]

in the decreasing subtraction we should take, if 9, take 8 multiply with 2, subtract that from 72 and we have 56

[@octane9150]

I still don‘t understand why you have to be a genius to see, that the 4 is missing?!

[@dagaidatis2dum2uploadvidss74]

Octane you know that’s the trick for more harder right?

[@dagaidatis2dum2uploadvidss74]

And that will make people have many answer to wrongness

[@random20000]

Yep if u notice that and do it for all the steps again but include 4 this time then all the answers will be 6?

[@jonathanapple4828]

Ragini Omg exactly. Accounting for the four means nothing. It’s asking you to solve for three.

[@illegitimatecrepe1990]

I didn't notice the four and thought it was 9

[@ilyachu8426]

If you're wondering why this test is so easy, remember: it was taken from Facebook.

[@insmyth307]

Answer is really 14.. and rarely anyone gets that..

[@GameJeMee]

@@insmyth307 explain....

[@unova3557]

@@insmyth307 🤨

[@kingcringe6069]

@@insmyth307 what no the answer is russia

[@Alfa-uu7zb]

@@insmyth307 14 was mine answer as well. 9=72 8=56 2*8=16 72-16=-56 5=20 3=? 2*3=6 20-6=14 In this Method it matters which number is next in the first row so if it was 4=? The answer would be 12 and after that it would still be 3=6 but not if you take 4 out.

[@georgeholloway3981]

There is no rationale for the "decreasing multiplication" method either. One does not have enough information to deduce that the multiplier is independent of the number on the left and instead dependent on the order of appearance in the question, which it would have to be, for the multiplier of 3 to be 3 instead of 2.

[@ronaldreardon4891]

Answer is 14 w/out invalid assumptions. See my comment.

[@lentlemenproductions770]

Correct.

[@UltimateBargains]

The proper representation should be: f(9) = 72; f(8) = 56; f(7) = 42; f(6) = 30; f(5) = 20; f(3) = ?

[@wahid85]

@@icecrack4579 15

[@brownferter]

6

[@jansimacek5084]

@@icecrack4579 yea, f(x) = x * (x-1)

[@icecrack4579]

@@jansimacek5084 yes, that is what I used.

[@facemask6376]

Not everyone listened to algebra class and this problem was an Internet thing, it is logical to assume the audience wouldn't understand that imo

[@memesarehealthy7818]

But the real smart people realise that 9 doesn’t equal 72 and 3 just equals 3

[@PlatinumH.2]

Sir, your İQ İS OVER 9000?!!?!??!

[@dirktween244]

As noted: Should be writen as "Produces -->", and NOT "Equals =" !

[@wamzyz1239]

Sooba Dooba It was a joke about the show called “dragon ball z”

[@noahgamer4942]

Sooba Dooba r/woooosh

[@jomillen5131]

@@thebacongodfather777 Twas a joke.

[@quigonkenny]

It's 6. The other two answers notice a pattern in the second column, but ignore the pattern in the first column. The fact that the pattern in the first column changes after 5 suggests that we're "skipping ahead" to 3. So you'd need to "skip ahead" in the second column as well, which as the second half of the video shows, would get you 6 no matter which formula you use.

[@ClintGutho]

This can also be solved using modular arithmetic and noticing a clear pattern that as the LHS increases, the mod we're working with increases. For example, 9 is congruent to 72 mod 63, 8 is congruent to 56 mod 48, 7 is congruent to 47 mod 35, and so on. Each time we go down, we're decreasing mod m by the amount previous -2. So, going from 6 is congruent to 30 mod 24, we subtract 9 and get 5 is congruent to 20 mod (24-9=15). So then we subtract 7 and say 4 is congruent to 12 mod (15-7=8), and finally subtract 5 to get 3 is congruent to 6 mod 3 :).

[@user-fg6ro]

Lost the series with Australia? Justify.

[@memoboy4141]

i solved it by only looking at the thumbnail and I'm FAR from being a genius

[@paulgoogol2652]

memo boy did you solve it with every method available? nice bro

[@memoboy4141]

Paul Googol no, the multiplication method

[@paulgoogol2652]

memo boy that's exactly what a genious would say.

[@memoboy4141]

Paul Googol ok

[@melindamead2242]

Not even joking i did the same thing

[@philip6419]

Actually, recognizing the skipped number-line and adjusting to it is how the problem is solved, no matter which of the three methods are used.

[@aakankshanegi6833]

If one side of the rectangle is extended by 20% and the other arm is increased by 5%. Then find the percentage change in area? Solution pls...

[@winterswarrior2064]

@@aakankshanegi6833 So Rectangle with Sides A,B Area = AB Increase A by 20% and B by 5% 1.2A x 1.05B = 1.26AB So (1.26AB-AB)/AB = 0.26 or a 26% Increase in Area

[@entitree.]

yeah, he covers this in the video

[@issamkholoud2009]

You are assuming that the pattern applies to 4, 4 was never given, what if 4 gives a different answer then the solutions would fail

[@davie53]

what are you trying to say???

[@SvdSinner]

I appreciate how you don't belittle the the people who think the answer is 12 or 9 as wrong.

[@Alfaomegabravo]

I feel this is one of those ads that say 99% fail this and then show someone failing at something easy.

[@patrickwienhoft7987]

1. Create a very simple series 2. Create a picture which say 'index = value' for some indices, then leave out one or two indices and finally add 'index = ?' 3. Post it on social media 4. Congratulations, you're featured in a MindYourDecisions video now!

[@ceilingfan7505]

Patrick Wienhöft Preach the truth.

[@Pumbear]

Surely you need two for 69 though? 1+1=69

[@lythd]

-14

[@lythd]

densch123 well since i solved mine correctly according to the rules in the video that means -14=1 but wait that's not right because -14=-28 and -14=/=1 and 1=2 and 1=/=-14 so that's wrong no hate

[@SandonBranderson]

+SpartanSpark also, if your working off of a doubling rule, it would just be positive 14, because negative and negative make positive.

[@evoyjonathan]

Me: Yeah, so the answer is 6, right? Presh: "So the most common answer is 6." *Anxiety noises*

[@rallozarx4215]

My first thought: Damn it. After the video: Now I'm just mad at every other answer.

[@nicolasrobichaud-barrette238]

Yeah but if you notice they all skip the 4 and go to the 3 and if you include the 4 in these patterns it always give 6 as an answer

[@russellegge9006]

@@rallozarx4215 nope 9

[@Volkbrecht]

The correct answer is that there isn't only one correct answer to this row. 6 is as correct as 9 because you can supply a formula by which you get to 6. If you say it's six, every one of these equations is a x (a-1). You'd need more numbers to claim that 6 is not a valid solution.

[@inanemme5603]

I used the first method of x(x-1) and got 6, but using the decreasing subtraction method I'd get this: 3=6-4 3=2

[@unboundedshadow5786]

I don't know why but I saw the decreasing subtraction method but added the 4 line because of the pattern in the numbers 9, 8, 7 and so on

[@herbie_the_hillbillie_goat]

People keep saying the other methods "missed" 4. The fact is those methods ignored any pattern present in the first column altogether.

[@erickarmenta3661]

6 is obviously the answer, other two methods still yield 6, except that they skip the line of 4 = 12

[@Orrinn123]

lolnopound because the pattern itself literally skips 4. Do you not know what the video is about?

[@Orrinn123]

lolnopound That’s a valid point. I would say all 3 answers are correct because they obviously all have patterns but what causes most if not all the confusion/arguments is that there’s no number 4.

[@anubiszyclenon1646]

That line isn't even in the question at all

[@Orrinn123]

Highfire Vortex Yeah but the other 2 methods work fine but they stop making sense when 3 stops following the pattern. Just because 4 isn’t shown doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be accounted for. Just as the numbers 10, 11, 12, 20, 37, 139 would all also work and follow the same pattern even though they were never shown

[@erickarmenta3661]

@@Orrinn123 my man, thanks for backing me up

[@tassbros9559]

How did 99% of people fail this?

[@somatia350]

Blue Jays Fan 31415 they missed 4

[@jd-fq5zi]

ofc they didn't, just a bait

[@MarkNante]

in an iq test, you have maybe 5sec for this.

[@funintertainmentmusicsport6792]

No I am win

[@poopswagtyrone7543]

they overthought this

[@PixelsPirate]

I would say 3 = 14 , no need to assume a missing line , Right number is equal to previous right number minus 2 times the left number

[@houstoneuler]

Finally found someone who had come up with the same solution I had. The problem doesn't state there's a missing line, and the pattern was that each subsequent line has the right-side decrease by double the amount of the left number, so the solution would be 3 = 20 - (2*3) = 14

[@eereree]

Everyone who said 3=3: Are we a joke to you?

[@XDTVreloadet]

"Only a Genius could solve it" *solves it in 5 seconds*

[@A8nton]

You were tired, right?

[@izakj5094]

you must be a genius

[@XDTVreloadet]

A8nton loled

[@theaxehandle1]

XDTV hence why it was shared millions of times. everybody loves to pretend they're smart

[@shmupshmuppewpew5260]

If it takes a genius to solve this, we're in serious f!$%&$ trouble.

[@YesNO-bn3pq]

“Only a genius solved it.” Me doing it by seeing the thumbnail: *what did you say?*

[@Zenoson]

ikr i did this in a second

[@richardfeynman7491]

Same, it's super obvious.

[@epicgaming7813]

I looked at it once in my recommended, couldn’t solve it, then it showed up again and I solved it that time instantly

[@ubiquityphantom6354]

@@epicgaming7813 same, I saw it the first time and was confused. I forgot about it and when I saw it again I figured it out instantly.

[@abcyabohamoud9453]

@@Zenoson so i

[@theAkornTree]

While a lot of these sorts of "here's a sequence..." type questions do ask "what's next in the sequence?" not all of them ask that. I looked at the problem and interpreted it as "here's a sequence, what comes at this particular point later in the sequence?" so I assumed the 4-line wasn't provided or requested, and the obvious answer is 6. You can describe why the answer is 6 in multiple ways, but the different descriptions are all describing the same thing. I will admit, near the beginning of the video when he said "most people think the answer is six" I immediately assumed that he meant the answer wasn't six, and that I must have missed something. I was relieved to be vindicated in the end.

[@ShizuruNakatsu]

Looked at the thumbnail for 3 seconds or less, got 6. Spent another 5 seconds confirming (9 x 8 = 72, 8 x 7 = 56, 7 x 6 = 42, etc) Seems pretty simple since I could answer AND verify my answer in under 10 seconds, but I'll watch the video now to see if I missed something.

[@AwBlanky]

I solved it by looking at the thumbnail, who else

[@bloodytiger5641]

I

[@spyro2002]

Me

[@patmurray5824]

Yes

[@ArunKumar-ml6wg]

I also do that

[@broni_boi8605]

Same

[@rafaelramos3083]

I used the subtraction method but i arrived to 6 9 = 72, 8 = 56, 7 = 42, 6 = 30, 5 = 20, 4 = 12 and 3 = 6 why did we jump the case left side = 4?

[@cavbucky]

Rafa Ramos he made the same mistake with the last one as well

[@Knightless]

Rafa Ramos to trick u

[@purrplaysLE]

3 would actually be 30, due to 6 being equal to 30

[@graceharman7794]

Your right what happened to 4

[@Fenounet]

@@graceharman7794 It's a trick, that's why "9" is NOT the best answer. Three answers are correct, but the best is "6". We can even add a 4th answer, which also give us "6", if we follow the substration method/logic: 6 = 30 5 = 20 (4 = 12) 3 = 6 PS: haha I only watched half of the video, it's explained in the second half.

[@vaidik804]

Took only a few seconds to solve from the thumbnail

[@trevcam6892]

6. The number is multiplied by the next lowest number. x = n(n-1). Anyone who was taught mathematics in the traditional way of learning the times tables by heart will have recognized the pattern of numbers immediately.

[@miaswapp]

Exactly

[@penman1289]

A bit to easy, what's the point.

[@mdipltd7404]

yep

[@kw1ky971]

n²-n

[@OmoriSupportsPalestine_143]

@@kw1ky971 also works

[@alanconde1974]

People are wrong when they say that the answer is twelve because it skips the number 4 when subtracting.

[@user-yb8fs4el3y]

Alan Conde and they are wrong when saying 9 because they also skipped 4 and went straight to 3

[@LupeSunglass]

@@user-yb8fs4el3y Actually, he factored in the 4, just didn't write it down.

[@Ic1clez_]

Ok, captain obvious... we all know he skipped 4. We have eyes 👀

[@powerblazecool3312]

Yep

[@juliamodrowska8350]

True

[@Aqsticgod]

5:35 i had the same idea, it has a pattern and its skipping one line, meaning 6 is the correct answer by deductive reasoning based on the pattern presented.

[@sumasianguy9149]

from the setup of the question it may be implied that 9,8,7,6,5,3 is the given sequence, therefore the "missing" value is not really missing and is seemingly intentional thus, although 6 is the most reasonable answer, the question lacks enough information

[@anitagofradump5195]

Lol this is actually the worst "only a genius can solve this" ever. Im not tryig to say im smart but i can guarantee a lot of people noticed it in 10 seconds

[@isboyle5487]

Probably made by Americans

[@queendread4427]

Seriously. But IQ I tend to praise myself but I know my limits. This is so simple. It should be 6. The pattern with the other 2 doesnt care about the left side at all. If there is a pattern on one side there should be one more or less on the other.

[@jackd6134]

I agree. I did, and I'm no genius.

[@jackd6134]

@@isboyle5487?

[@himorry1]

Yes, Anita, I agree. But the problem is that it's SO simple, it looks to me that no one has actually found THE SIMPLEST answer, which does exist. It is a far better answer t han any of the ones offered in the video, simpler, gets the answer more directly, gets it correct for ANY digit or for negative numbers too, in a symmetrical way, the same answers WITHOUT EVEN REQUIRING A SEQUENTIAL SERIES OF GIVEN DATA to "mine" for patterns. In short, EVERY ONE of the solutions given gild the lily totally unnecessarily. There is an even simpler, more widely applicable, and stronger solution, and you do not even need a sequence to figure it out. Just get the answers for 3 or 4 integers at random, and you can then predict what the sequence presented as a "problem" will be for every one of its lines, with more simplicity and greater applicability than any of the answers provided in the video.

[@angelhristov9870]

I laughed SOOO hard on the first twenty seconds of the video when he said when he said it was claimed that 99% of people can't solve it and only genuises can😆

[@gabrielramos4109]

Yeah, I was surprised. I thought my mind would change hearing the other methods but as soon as he explained them, I knew that they're flawed because of how they skip 4 on the left side. You would figure it out by just looking at the thumbnail

[@AlDunbar]

The "only x% can solve this" is a common ploy to keep people on their hooks by fanning their ego.

[@winnieirhefo6579]

@@AlDunbar yeah you are right i don't think you are a genius know because you solve the mathematic test right is just a way to make ppl feel more than the "99%" is actually simple IQ test

[@bradleywalton970]

yeah this channel always lies about facts like that

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

The answer is "numbers, by definition, cannot be variables."

[@VictorLonmo]

Part of the problem with this question is the notation. It would make more sense if each line was expressed as a function. Thus, instead of stating "9 = 72" (which any kid in first grade will tell you is obviously wrong) it should state f(9) = 72.

[@johndown2337]

If the 4 didn't matter then there wouldn't be any numbers on the left, just a series and a question about the next number. The numbers on the left, however, so the result should be solely based on the index rather than which result was previously asked about. Basically, there should be a rule(function) that relates the index and result without depending on the results of other indices.

[@redpillnibbler4423]

The 4 is simply missing to confuse.

[@spinrosantipas3603]

Both decreasing multiplication and decreasing subtraction skips the step ''4'' which would get them to the correct answer of 6. (4=20-8 and then 3=12-6) (4x3=12 and then 3x2=6 not 3x3)

[@vari1535]

He explained it which is coolio

[@gabepalmer9531]

So every method gives an answer of 6

[@TenToTu]

and it makes no sense, since the number on the left is only decreasing by 1 every time, yet the other side is always changing differently, meaning the equal sign serves no point

[@Rhiannon_Autumn]

all 3 methods are really doing the same thing. Those that get a different answer than 6 are just applying the method incorrectly.

[@harryzero1566]

@@gabepalmer9531 I don't know, but a simple reduction of the hidden multiplier by 1 gives 3 x 2 = 6

[@jellomiki]

If you include the missing 4, all answers will be 6

[@alexanderboukal5332]

Exactly, I even tested all 3 methods out just to be sure. They all yield the answer of 6.

[@ryze520]

It’s only missing 3

[@ryze520]

6-3 =3

[@eymannassole6162]

But... You still need to subtract from 20 3=14

[@alexanderboukal5332]

@@eymannassole6162 Which method are you using to get that answer? And what steps did you take to get at your answer?

[@giovannicorso7583]

"What's the first number of the sequence?" "1" "and the second?" "2" "the third?" "3" "what's the 19478129th then?" "I'll guess it's four"

[@sonalb5505]

The answer for 3 can also be root72 as 9 = 72 9=72 3^2=72 3=root72 3=6 * root2

[@Ckdude100]

The answer is without a doubt 6. The other methods are both ignoring the 5 to 3 jump

[@Nick-pu8jg]

Bostonzo B that was my thought too

[@Nick-pu8jg]

Bostonzo B also the other solutions also give the answer of six by adding the missing line

[@Surfboarder4]

Bostonzo B I did it and should have have got 6 but mucked up my calculations and got 12.

[@jacksainthill8974]

No, the answer is 3. 3 = 3, whatever falsehoods are already written on the screen.

[@purplecow3000]

wait 3 = 3 sounds like the hardest puzzle! It is up there with 10 = 10 and 27 = 27

[@briandaniels7493]

"Some say the answer is 12. Others say the answer is 9. There is a third group that says the answer is 6..." ...and still a 4th group saying 3=3 and the other expressions are incorrect and superfluous.

[@kaitlynngaras3431]

7 second riddles be like:

[@PotatoSofi]

I'm the 5th group saying "14 and I'm right"

[@memerboi69.0]

Sofia kzbin.info/www/bejne/amGzp5xnjbugldU

[@pcooke9865]

@@PotatoSofi The answer is 6

[@ChroniclesofTaylor2]

The answer is 3.

[@HR-wd6cw]

The reason it can't be 12 is because the progression is interrupted (some people may miss the 4 is not present, so there is no "4 = ?" or "4 = #" (some number) line... and if you follow the progression up to that point, yes you would have 4 = 12, but there is no "4" line.

[@worldsmostaveragemagician2246]

Literally 2 seconds just by seeing the thumbnail

[@iordanismygdalis1163]

For both the second and third theory, the only difference that was really made, was that you didn’t count the amount of numbers you had to go through from 5 to 3 and explained them as if the next number decreasing from 5 was 3.

[@sb_dunk]

Yeah exactly, people that think these are the answer just need to ask themselves what the answer for "4 = ?" would be

[@negitivebike3169]

@@sb_dunk 12

[@danielmenker557]

Took me about 5 seconds to figure it out by looking at the thumbnail lol

[@becauseimapotato7599]

Yeah same, what a great "IQ test"

[@TeakOrange]

I mean it was shared across Facebook so it was clear that the people who were going to be trying this were all over 60.

[@zaliendagust1671]

It tooks me 5s to know it is 6, but then I start to doubt it since we already know 6=30, which is contradictory...

[@roopankumar3950]

Same but I took 7 to 8 sec

[@justmehithere]

Same bc its very easy

[@robertoclaux8654]

This problem should be titled "Occam's razor." People are only looking for a more complicated solution because the problem went viral with taglines like 'IQ' and 'genius.' When in reality it's a simple algebra problem that most of us probably got as extra credit in high school.

[@William-Sunderland]

Figured it out with the thumbnail, 🤣 also noticed how the other logic were actually the same just less "complete" and ignoring the skipped four in the sequence while watching the video.

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

Both the 2nd and the 3rd solution don't make much sense because they neglect the 4=? equation.

[@danoodleiscute1130]

Yes that is the point, they do not look at the numbers but simply the next line

[@jonathanbanta9456]

No they don't

[@depesci7133]

When I saw the thumbnail, I immediately used the second method but accounted for 4, giving the answer of 5. I don’t know why other people who used the same method as me completely disregarded the pattern of decreasing by 1 on the left.

[@MonkeyWrench1]

Yeah, can't forget the missing 4.

[@OfficialFedHater]

Because it's not explained as a sequence. The four is purposefully left out, therefore it can easily be assumed to not be part of the problem. By adding it in, you're changing the variables and creating a sequence that doesn't currently exist based on the currently available information. The answer is only six if you make it six by adding '4' to the sequence to make your answer right. I don't believe any of the answers are wrong, there are good arguments for each answer.

[@khajiitimanus7432]

Looked at the thumbnail - isn't it just 6? Edit: Personally, I did the first method. However, the second and third methods are flawed, because they skip 4 in the sequence and don't account for it. Edit 2: I'm glad you brought up the above edit in the video.

[@smartart6841]

I did the second method and accounted for 4 and got 6

[@MrSUPERDUCON]

@Razor Face Adding a line "4" is assuming that there is a sequence 9,8,7,6,5, and THUS 4 before 3. BUT answers "12" and "9" are in fact ALSO ASSUMING that there IS a sequence (respectively 16,14,12,10,8 and 8,7,6,5,4) but that this sequence IS NOT in the first row, only in the second (the calculation one). Thus the question is: why assuming a sequence and not the other? Or you assume both, or neither... By the way, for "12" answer, everything gives 12, the "line 3" could be 0, or 1 or 2, but also 9,8,7,6,5, ... because the answer is always "20-8" whatever the beginning of the line , what's nonsense :D

[@shabanaasgher6353]

It’s 9 not 6.

[@DoodleNoodle129]

@Razor Face well ignoring 4 is clearly wrong because it gives two options, and if we are going to be taking anything by decreasing each time we need to keep it constant throughout

[@beaubreau]

Lol I said the same thing before the video was over. I was really disappointed that 4 was skipped. As if it doesn't hold value. I am like wait wait wait. Since when do we just skip sequences just because the number isn't there.

[@susanjimenez5500]

I was debating whether I should add the line for 4= or not... I was wondering if it was left out on purpose or not... so I had both 6 and 9 as possible answers depending on if we should add the row for 4= or not.

[@NoodleIDK13]

I literally looked at the thumbnail for 2 seconds and was just like "6"

[@allegory7638]

The left hand column decreases by 1 as it goes downward. Therefore, no reasonable basis exists to conclude that the decrease after the number 5 should be a decrease of 2, making 3 the next number in the downward progression. The "genius" solution is recognizing that 4 was left out.

[@tokyo.peking]

Answer is 14 3 =14 And logic is A=B C=D E=F Where D = F + 2*E B = D + 2*C .....

[@FrogsAreGods]

@@tokyo.peking i dont think so that also makes no sense

[@tokyo.peking]

@@FrogsAreGods I didn't ask you to think but to look. Result is ok therefore ....

[@fovarberma752]

@@tokyo.peking First, the use of the symbol "=" is retarded. Second, answer is simple: X = (X^2)-X 9 = (9*9)-9 = 81-9 = 72 8 = (8*8)-8 = 64-8 = 56 7 = (7*7)-7 = 49-7 = 42 = The Answer to The Big Question about Life, The Universe, And Everything 6 = (6*6)-6 = 36-6 = 30 5 = (5*5)-5= 25-5 = 20 _4 = (4*4)-4 = 16-4 = 12_ 3 = (3*3)-3 = 9-3 = *6* _2 = (2*2)-2 = 4-2 = 2_ _1 = (1*1)-1 = 1-1 = 0_ _0 = (0*0)-0 = 0-0 = 0_ _(-3) = ((-3)*(-3))-(-3) = 9 - (-3) = 12_

[@fovarberma752]

Recognizing 4 was left out is not genius, merely a trap to get people confused.

[@KJB-46]

Me: Sees the thumbnail and gets 6. Also me: let's waste the next 8 minute going over what it took everyone 2 seconds to figure out.

[@kevenlee4011]

The answer is 12

[@larrypotaot]

Not you

[@larrypotaot]

@@kevenlee4011 you

[@MrRnpandey]

15 answer

[@Limit-lr4pz]

Omg I agree

[@Glitchrat_YT]

Instantly got to 6 by looking at the thumbnail

[@holidayinn4293]

The 4 = line is not shown as part of this "puzzle" From what we are shown 3 = 9 would be correct. The only shown pattern is the multiplier increasing +1 in ascending order.

[@GabrielOliveira-mh1cn]

You can also do it Like this: 9×9-9=72 8×8-8=56 7×7-7=42 6×6-6=30 5×5-5=20 3×3-3=6

[@theangrybirds98]

Hashtag No name with order of operations 9*9 has to be done first. But brackets definitely help with being clear, for sure.

[@SeeTv.]

Gabriel Oliveira Your method is a^2 - a But algebra says that it's actually the same thing as a*(a-1)

[@CluelessCarter]

You do realize that the nine times table, increases by nines right? Like 9, 18, 27, 36, etc. so doing 9x9-9 is the same as 9x8. Which is literally the same as every body else, but your way is doing more work. It’s an extra step. Your multiplying a higher number just to subtract it again.

[@solarfyre2136]

@@CluelessCarter but this solution removes the dependance from the other rows, so it doesn't care about the existance of the 4=12 row.

[@CluelessCarter]

Solarfyre just do 4x3=12. For the rest 9x8, 8x7, 7x6, etc.

[@moneyprintergobrr6501]

Tbh the correct answer is "The question is full of mistakes"

[@cryofpaine]

Nah, it's a very simple problem, typical of many math problems. "Given this sequence, what is the result for this value?" The first 5 "equations" establish the pattern. Then rather than just taking the next value in the sequence, it jumps a few spots just to make it a little harder.

[@Vukan.Kos.]

Yes

[@sadagusfate]

@@cryofpaine the problem being we don't know if it works of purly arithmetically, or if it works based of the lines shown

[@alex_exists]

@@cryofpaine Yeah, I got the answer in like 2 seconds.

[@hammad3180]

This was probably the most straight forward question on this channel.

[@TheJaguar1983]

Those claims of "90% can't solve it" and "only geniuses can solve it" make me think that there's an insecurity among people about their IQs that these kinds of ads/posts prey on.

[@davidsorensen2116]

The problem with your "missing line" argument for the answer being 6 is that there is no missing line. You make an assumption that the left side should always decrease by one without knowing whether that's the case. Also, the "decreasing subtraction" argument is by far the weakest, as it has no power to explain the first line 9=72. The two multiplication lines explain equally, and without knowing whether the sequence is important (i.e. can you infer a missing line), you cannot distinguish between them.

[@kris1110]

welcome to the comment section where everyone suddenly turns in a mathematical genius

[@LupeSunglass]

Sorry Chris.

[@kris1110]

@@LupeSunglass it's ok. i don't know what i did to you but i forgive you

[@LupeSunglass]

I said sorry for all the people acting like a mathematical genius.

[@vanillacokejunky]

i actually usually get these videos wrong or have no idea how to solve, but this one is pretty easy compared to the other problems on this channel

[@catianajohnston4133]

Yeah! They're like, "I got this in 5 seconds"it's like they think their iq is as high as Albert Einstein!

[@jessica-ls3tc]

i solved it before he finished the intro

[@snitttyyy]

wow so smart

[@sirticklebear5983]

Jessica I solved it when looking at the thumbnail

[@tmkmdra6621]

Same here, really easy

[@rosarah7592]

same lol

[@powandwow750]

Jessica same

[@Hogscraper]

I came up with 9 in a completely different way seeing ab=c where, (sorry can't write subscripts with this phone), b[n]=a[n-1]-2 It also fits and does not need to pretend as if it's ever okay in math to assume a series is something other than exactly what was presented in the question.

[@carsonjones2316]

By skipping 4, you’ve left out a mathematical calculation. You get 6 no matter what method you use if 4 is included as a value. 3 cannot be assigned as the next number in a descending list just because we choose to ignore the 4. Therefore whether you omit 4 or not, the value still exists whether on the page or not. 3=6 in this line always, just as 4=12 always

[@DarkTobias7]

ACTUALLY THE ANSWER IS NOT 6. IT IS 30!! ABOVE SAYS 6 = 30. So 3=6=30!!

[@benni1951]

Thats actually the most correct thing I could have expect in the comments

[@satchury722]

But if 6=30 then 30=6 so it doesnt matter

[@iluvyoo1971]

It doesnt matter since 6=30 then :T

[@mikeries8549]

Math abuse by pesh tewaker.

[@angelofdeath5653]

That would mean 3=6=30=870 and so on, by that logic 3=infinity, so that too is incorrect

[@StevenLandesVO]

The issue with the decreasing subtraction and decreasing multiplication methods is that they're not consistent - they're dependent on the lines above, so if you change the order the answers also change. Ideally these things should be order independent, with the given values merely representing examples of the formula.

[@MrBii03]

Honestly the issue with the other two methods is that people don't notice that 4 was skipped. I did it by decreasing subtraction so if you notice that 4 was skipped and account for that the answer is still equal to 6. So sure it isn't a proof at the moment but it does line up.

[@wizardjokes]

No, the consistent formula for "decreasing subtraction" is a x (a + 1) - (a x 2) Which is the same as a^2 - a or a(a-1) Which is incidentally the same formula as "decreasing multiplication" and "answer is 6" The real problem is not applying the formula to 3 due to mistaking 4 for 3.

[@willyolio9590]

In any case, this entire "problem" is based on ignoring the entire definition of an equals sign. in the "function" interpretation, at least each line is a line, and the equal sign is a "function" instead of equals sign. decreasing subtraction the equals sign is nothing more than a vertical divider on the page, so i consider it the most nonsensical answer.

[@jav_a]

@@willyolio9590 yeah i agree with u

[@ShayPatrickCormacTHEHUNTER]

My solution was n=(n*n) - n, which is completely order-independent. Why was that not listed in the video? Does it have some unforeseen negatives?

[@Raidas.]

Well then "Decreasing subtraction" and "Decreasing multiplication" people, tell me what is 4=? if you dont see it it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Thinking your way this does make sense: 9-8 8-7 7-6 6-5 5-4 3-3 if you take your way of thinking from first number you shouldnt ignore the sequance of the first number edit: well, i just watched the next half of the vid and my explanation was already explained. And way clearer i think

[@NaThingSerious]

“But not everyone thinks 6 is the right answer” And those people we call idiots

[@thomasjefferson3506]

The answer is 3. 3 = 3. The equal sign has a specific meaning, and no number of preceding false statements changes that meaning.

[@jurjenvanderhoek316]

Exactly!

[@SpruceOaks]

Boom! What’s funny is all the people above saying “how can 99% of people miss this?” Yet whenever it’s posted, roughly 99% of answers are something other than 3.

[@cdevries9767]

I'm team 3 = 3!! There are agreed upon rules people. Nowhere in the problem did it state the there is a new way of writing equations.

[@bonogiamboni4830]

No, 3 is not equal to 720

[@MindYourDecisions]

Thank you for 1 million views! It's been 3 years since the video has been released, and I have some thoughts about these kinds of problems! ... [Thought 1] All of the people who criticized me for making viral videos are now saying why it's smart to use click-bait titles and cover viral topics. A few have even apologized to me--though not all! I wish they realized it sooner instead of unfairly criticizing me. It's not easy being ahead of the curve #gametheory ... [Thought 2] If 9 = 72, 8 = 56, 7 = 42, 6 = 30, 5 = 20, then 3 = ? Some people dislike such "ambiguous" puzzles. But much of life is solving "ambiguous" problems, like deciding where to invest or which foods to eat. Pattern recognition is a valuable skill when solving such problems.

[@michaelorthuber5719]

The second is also 6 9=72-16=56 8=56-14=42 7=42-12=30 6=30-10=20 5=20-8=12 4=12-6=6 3=6

[@janoschalze623]

I paused the video and solved for all three values you mentioned. But also I think 3 is a valid solution, because 3 = 3. However I dislike how these riddles are written, because nobody defines that the "="-mark doesn't mean "to equal" like you would suggest it in arithmetic, but a result. I would prefer those riddles to have an arrow or something similar. But anyway: Congratulation!

[@pradeepikha1]

The answer is 15

[@yogendrasinghchauhan746]

3=6

[@migamings5158]

I can't believe that i got it right!!

[@SeanPat1001]

I initially came up with six by using the n x (n -1) rule. I’d say the problem with the other two rules is that they have identified a pattern, but didn’t continue that pattern to include the number four. The rule I used didn’t require a reference to a pattern. So, I would say they had the right idea but didn’t follow their own rules.

[@dalmnationtwitch7931]

I hate to burst everyones bubbles here but 3 can't equal to 6. The reason is 6 = 30.

[@kamalKishor-jh5qu]

9×8=72 8×7=56 7×6=42 6×5=30 5×4=20 Then 4×3=12 Hence:- 3×2=6 is a correct answer

[@nailen4753]

did it also this way

[@Umbideoma]

Also he said 12 could have been the answer but that wouldn’t follow the pattern because then 4 would equal 12 and then 3 would equal 6

[@sepchannel4217]

i did 9x9-9 = 72 8x8-8 = 56 7x7-7 = 42 6x6-6 = 30 5x5-5 = 20 3x3-3 = 6 (extra : 4x4-4 = 12 2x2-2 = 2 1x1-1 = 0 0x0-0 = 0)

[@parabolaaaaa4919]

6x5 is 30 6/2 = 3 3=15

[@jdabrenica2259]

@@parabolaaaaa4919 there is no logic on your answer lol

[@glyph7308]

"Only a genius can find the correct answer." seems like I'mma be a genius overnight.

[@helo6824]

Yep, me too, I solved in two secs, the answer I got is 3 equals 3.

[@dwightsmith4641]

I get 3.

[@tot0N]

Ikr i am genius as well ( i wise i were damn it 😭)

[@stellabotato2001]

I can't be the only one who thought of 15 because you multiply the given numbers by 6

[@sonicwaveinfinitymiddwelle8555]

Why 99% of viral questions are poorly made or just simple math which even a sixth grader could solve

[@Priyanshu_Singh20441]

99% Failed It Me after solving by seeing the thumbnail : I'm gonna redefine mathematics

[@HarambaeXelonmuskfans]

Makes a joke like this and claiming you did it doesnt line up buddy.

[@8Smoker8]

Impressive that you managed to make a 7 mins video about this ^^

[@MrsMingo]

You shorted yourself & the world 49 seconds of wasted life we'll never get back as well.

[@visiblecontent7630]

@@MrsMingo 7 min = 7x60=420 seconds how come 49 seconds?

[@MrsMingo]

@@visiblecontent7630 I take it you didn't even watch the video?? The comment I was replying to stated "Impressive that you managed to make a 7 minute video about this ^^" yet the video is actually 7 minutes AND 49 seconds long. I was merely pointing out to 8Smoker8 that they shorted themselves by 49 seconds....... You've gone & made my comment far too complicated for absolutely no reason.. Does my explanation now makes sense to you?

[@rba5567]

I saw the thumbnail and advanced it to the very end to verify my answer was correct.

[@Aztonio]

I quickly wanted to watch it in x2 speed but I was already...

[@KuDastardly]

_"99% failed to solve it."_ Moments later... _"So most people believe the correct answer is six..."_

[@ichbins5138]

What is with 14? 8×2=16 16+56=72 Or: 72-(2×8)=56 7×2=14 14+42=56 56-(2×7)=42 And then: 3×2=6 20-6=14 So I'm taking only information that are given and don't "build" and easy way in theorizing, that there must be the 4=12 and the 3×2=6

[@petermaurer2426]

9=72 ... is false. A false statement implies anything, so all answers are correct, including 3=4,563,792 and 3=my left foot.

[@pwxiii5273]

Intan

[@pwxiii5273]

Andrian Mustopa Intan

[@anastasiaxxx4718]

Such problems must be solved by SUPPOSING that 9=72, as well as by following the specific pattern you have been given

[@bruhmoment1835]

@@anastasiaxxx4718 ya but it don't be like that

[@Richi_Boi]

You are the true 1% we dumbasses just searched for patterns XD

[@Jake_Eyes]

And then there's a fourth group that found the quartic function that passes through all the given points and solved it for x=3. And then a fifth group did the same thing as the fourth, but subtracted the corresponding values from f(x) = 0.5*ln(x) from the inputs of the process so that, after deriving their quartic function, they could add an arbitrary logarithmic element to the end of it. This was all done so that _their_ function would give all the correct values given in the riddle, but would give a completely different but equally valid value at x=3 just to make the fourth group look bad. And then a sixth group saw how much fun and internet prestige the fifth group had received from mocking the fourth group, and tried to jump on the band wagon by doing the same thing with f(x) = 0.2*SQRT(x) + 8, but it didn't catch on because no one noticed the pun. And then a seventh group discovered that the sequence of values given in the riddle corresponded directly to a series of numbers on the back of a DVD box cover of "Rush Hour 2" and thus came to conclusion that the correct answer was "Jackie Chan".

[@gamerzentertainment9610]

SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHSSHSHSHSHSHHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHHSH

[@name_69420]

woah

[@ThomasTheThermonuclearBomb]

What’s the pun?

[@Jake_Eyes]

@@ThomasTheThermonuclearBomb Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations! You've won the Jake Eyes Weekly, Monthly, or However-long-before-I-get-an-opportunity-to-give-out-one-of-these-againly Humility Award! Because there is no pun! I was gaslighting you all into _believing_ there was one to see who would be the first to have the humility to admit that they didn't get it. And the winner is Thomas the Thermonuclear Bomb! As for the rest of you, do us all a favor and feel ashamed of yourselves! Unless, of course, you're late to the party and didn't discover this comment until after the Humility award was claimed. In that case, you should know that my original comment had 15 likes at the time Tommy the Nuke admitted the passage of the placebo pun over his pate, which means at least 14 other people read the comment before someone was secure enough in their intelligence to admit the simulated wooshery. Assuming this ratio correlates with the greater this-comment-thread-reading population, this means that you likely would have had, at most, a 1 in 15 probability of being humble enough to admit supercranial wordplay locomotion, so doctors suggest taking approximately 93.3% of your daily recommended dose of humiliation. Of course, if anyone somehow _does_ manage to find a pun that I didn't notice, please post it below to claim the Jake Eyes Hopefully-not-to-oftenly Bested the Architect Award! I promise I will be WAY too captivated by the coincidence to express my jealously of your intellect in the form of crass, defensive verbal abuse. It will, instead, take the form of crass, defensive textual abuse, as has been and will be the custom here on KZbin until the platform implements a voicemail feature in fulfillment of certain passages of the Book of Revelation.

[@IsabruhMoment]

This is the last place I expected to find you, Mr. Jake Eyes

[@RockyJones]

Does anyone know there are 2 possible answers?

[@redpillnibbler4423]

No,nobody knows that.

[@the-person]

Commenting from the thumbnail: I believe the answer for 3 is 6. For all of the listed numbers, their equal to is the number multiplied by the number 1 below it. So, 3 x 2 = 6.

[@redmaxii87]

This is actually extremely easy. I solved it just by looking at the thumbnail.

[@peteryanes9339]

Same but I watch the video just to make sure because I second guess myself alot idkwhy I do that

[@morreamanha]

wow, so smart, let me clap

[@50AHenry]

Agree. Seemed easy to me.

[@Daniela-pr7rz]

@@50AHenry the issue with this sort of problems is that some of them can have more than one pattern so just because you thought of another one than the one asking the question, doesn't mean you were wrong.

[@AmmoDude]

me too

[@mysteriousjz]

I easily came up with the first solution 6. You just wanna catch a common pattern with "simplest" relation. The other two add unnecessary complication and interjection into it.

[@JP1234815]

If you look at the middle solution - the answer is wrong because the number skips from 5 to 3 completely ignoring the 4 in between. So if it was the middle equation then the next number would be 12 but subtracting 6. The next number (3) would be 6-4 so the last number would be 2. (hope i've made sense!!)

[@JL-go3]

Good call, the pattern was obvious straight away. 20+10=30 , 30+12=42 and so on. I've found these videos to overly complicate simple patterns . I just watched two in a row and got them quick. All hail the math genius.

[@HarpanW]

i used the function: f(a)=a(a-1)*floor(lg(a+5)) which fits the all the criteria. f(3) was then 0.

[@TheRealH2OBlue]

the pattern here is that these are pronic numbers. a pronic number is a product of two consecutive integers. so the answer is either 6 (3x2) or 12 (3x4), but i think 6 is more applicable, since the pattern is n(n-1), and the fact that 4 is missing. if you wanna learn more, click this wikipedia page! ----> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronic_number i hope i helped you :]

[@debbiegarcia2800]

That thumbnail is a literal mobile ad😂😂😂😂

[@spadesofhearts7714]

It took me about 10 seconds to come up with the first answer. When he introduced the other two answers I thought I was gonna be proven wrong or something lol